On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I notice BTW that we have never updated the SET reference page since > subtransactions were introduced --- it still says only that SET LOCAL > is "local to the current transaction", without a word about > subtransactions. So we have a documentation problem anyway. I recall > that we had some discussion during the 8.0 dev cycle about whether > having SET LOCAL's effects end at the end of the current subtransaction > was really a good idea, given that subtransactions aren't the conceptual > model the SQL spec defines, but nothing was ever done about changing > the implementation.
ISTM that's the real problem; SET LOCAL wasn't fully updated/considered when subtransactions were added. One way to handle this would be to have 3 different behaviors for SET: session-level, transaction-level, and sub-transaction level. If we had that, we could probably make an across-the-board call that all functions operate as if in their own sub-transaction, at least when it comes to SET. Whatever we decide on, least-surprise would dictate that it's the same whether you apply function-specific settings or not. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Description: PGP signature