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

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> As we are talking about a description with GUC_ACTION_SAVE, something
> like "Parameters with this flag do not support RESET, or SET in the
> context of a function call"?  NO_RESET sounds a bit confusing as a
> name if you consider this second part (it can be understood as
> resetting the value as well), but keeping it as-is does not look like
> a big deal to me with this description, or an equivalent, in place.

Yeah, we already talked upthread about how the SAVE restriction makes
"NO_RESET" a bit of a misnomer.  Nobody proposed a better name though.

            regards, tom lane