Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16:00AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > The attached patch changes ABORT from NOTICE to WARNING, and documents
>> > > that all other are errors. This "top-level" logic idea came from Robert
>> > > Haas, and it has some level of consistency.
>> >
>> > This patch utterly fails to address my complaint.
>> >
>> > More to the point, I think it's a waste of time to make these sorts of
>> > adjustments. The only thanks you're likely to get for it is complaints
>> > about cross-version behavioral changes. Also, you're totally ignoring
>> > the thought that these different message levels might've been selected
>> > intentionally, back when the code was written. Since there have been
>> > no field complaints about the inconsistency, what's your hurry to
>> > change it? See Emerson.
>>
>> My problem was that they issued _no_ message at all. I am fine with
>> them issuing a warning if that's what people prefer. As they are all
>> SET commands, they will be consistent.
>
> OK, here is a patch which changes ABORT from NOTICE to WARNING, and SET
> from ERROR (which is new in 9.4) to WARNING.

Well, Tom and I are on opposite sides of this, I suppose. I prefer
ERROR for everything other than the top-level transaction commands,
and see no benefit from opting for a wishy-washy warning.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company