On 2014-08-19 21:47:26 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 08/19/2014 06:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > What's the problem with the COMMIT WITH (report_lsn on) I've proposed? > > Reporting the LSN in the command tag? Anything doing transparent > > failover needs to be aware of transaction boundaries anyway. > > Tom's objection to a GUC applies there too - a client app can send that > when the underlying driver doesn't expect to get the results.
I don't really think this is true. With a GUC it's set for the whole session or even users. With such a option to COMMIT it'd only set when issued by something that actually does transparent failover (i.e. the underlying driver). Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
