On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote: On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit Kapila escribió: > > > > > The only point I can see against SET PERSISTENT is that other > variants > > of > > > SET command can be used in > > > transaction blocks means for them ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT > functionality > > works, > > > but for SET PERSISTENT, > > > it can't be done. > > > So to handle that might be we need to mention this point in User > > Manual, so > > > that users can be aware of this usage. > > > If that is okay, then I think SET PERSISTENT is good to go. > > > > I think that's okay. There are other commands which have some forms > > that can run inside a transaction block and others not. CLUSTER is > > one example (maybe the only one? Not sure). >
> If no objections to SET PERSISTENT .. syntax, I shall update the patch for > implementation of same. Patch to implement SET PERSISTENT command is attached with this mail. Now it can be reviewed. I have not update docs, as I want feedback about the behaviour of implementation, so that docs can be updated appropriately. With Regards, Amit Kapila.
set_persistent.v1.patch
Description: set_persistent.v1.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
