Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Just to be sure about something here. The change of behavior with SET
> in the context of a PL makes this patch unsuitable for a backpatch,
> hence the plan is to apply this stuff only on HEAD, right?
Yeah, I think we concluded that back-patching might cause more
trouble than it's worth.
> + <entry><literal>NO_RESET</literal></entry>
> + <entry>Parameters with this flag do not support
> + <command>RESET</command> commands.
> + </entry>
> As per the issue with SET commands used with functions, this
> description does not completely reflect the reality.
It seems adequate enough to me ... do you have a suggestion?
regards, tom lane