Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> Nowhere, really. I tried to fix it, but could not come up with anything
> >> remotely clean.
> >>
> >
> > So it is something for the TODO list or a 9.0 open item?
> >
> >
>
> It's not new, AFAIK. So a
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Nowhere, really. I tried to fix it, but could not come up with anything
remotely clean.
So it is something for the TODO list or a 9.0 open item?
It's not new, AFAIK. So arguably fixing it could just be a TODO. I don't
have time right
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Nowhere, really. I tried to fix it, but could not come up with anything
> remotely clean.
So it is something for the TODO list or a 9.0 open item?
---
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
> Bruce Momjia
Nowhere, really. I tried to fix it, but could not come up with anything
remotely clean.
cheers
andrew
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Where are we on this?
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
It seems like Custom GUCs are still in nee
Where are we on this?
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> It seems like Custom GUCs are still in need of some work, as shown in my
> recent email. In particular, they are not transaction safe - if a
> transaction attempts to do
It seems like Custom GUCs are still in need of some work, as shown in my
recent email. In particular, they are not transaction safe - if a
transaction attempts to do DefineCustomFooVariable() and that
transaction aborts, the placeholder setting that it used is already gone
by the time it trie
