Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, I thought I did it, and it did work on my limited number of test
> > cases. Seems you got it fully working.
>
> Actually, it failed for me (and evidently for Barry) on exactly the test
> case you posted along with the patch.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I thought I did it, and it did work on my limited number of test
> cases. Seems you got it fully working.
Actually, it failed for me (and evidently for Barry) on exactly the test
case you posted along with the patch. You said
> test=> set autoc
Tom Lane wrote:
> Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Below is the current behavior (based on a fresh pull from cvs this morning):
> > Current State ActionEnd State
> > ACon and NITset ACon ACon and NIT
> > set
I said:
> Bruce was supposed to fix this. We agreed that a SET command would
> never initiate a transaction block on its own. Looks like it's not
> there yet ---
Now it is. Give it another try ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Below is the current behavior (based on a fresh pull from cvs this morning):
> Current State ActionEnd State
> ACon and NITset ACon ACon and NIT
> set ACoff ACoff and IT
