Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Just to be sure about something here.  The change of behavior with SET
> in the context of a PL makes this patch unsuitable for a backpatch,
> hence the plan is to apply this stuff only on HEAD, right? 

Yeah, I think we concluded that back-patching might cause more
trouble than it's worth.

> +      <entry><literal>NO_RESET</literal></entry>
> +      <entry>Parameters with this flag do not support
> +      <command>RESET</command> commands.
> +      </entry>

> As per the issue with SET commands used with functions, this
> description does not completely reflect the reality.

It seems adequate enough to me ... do you have a suggestion?

            regards, tom lane