Tom Lane-2 wrote
> David Johnston <
> polobo@
> > writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote
>>> I don't think it's worth breaking backward compatibility. I'm not
>>> entirely sure what I would have decided here in a vacuum, but at this
>>> point existing precedent seems determinative.
>
>> Well, at this point we have already broken backward compatibility by
>> releasing this. With Tom's thread necromancy I missed the fact this got
>> released in 9.3
>
> Uh, what? The commit I'm objecting to is certainly not in 9.3.
> It's this one:
>
> Author: Bruce Momjian <
> bruce@
> >
> Branch: master [a54141aeb] 2013-10-04 13:50:28 -0400
>
> Issue error on SET outside transaction block in some cases
>
> Issue error for SET LOCAL/CONSTRAINTS/TRANSACTION outside a
> transaction
> block, as they have no effect.
>
> Per suggestion from Morten Hustveit
>
> I agree that it's too late to reconsider the behavior of pre-existing
> cases such as LOCK TABLE, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about
> this one.
My bad, I was relaying an assertion without checking it myself. I believe
my source meant 9.4/head and simply mis-typed 9.3 which I then copied.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Suggestion-Issue-warning-when-calling-SET-TRANSACTION-outside-transaction-block-tp5743139p5779205.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.