Re: BUG #17077: about three parameters in postgresql 13.3

On 2021-Jul-17, Tom Lane wrote:

> I've concluded that we should just document them (and am working
> on that right now).  It's certainly true that there is a use-case
> for reading them: libpq does "SHOW transaction_read_only", for
> example.  And since we've gone to the trouble of making SET of one
> of these equivalent to SET TRANSACTION, we should probably just
> document that it is.

Maybe include "SET NAMES" while at it?  It drove me crazy when I found
out that was accepted, last year.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/