Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> >> I object to adding unnecessary complications like that.
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics? The
> >> > changes to the code were the addition of only one line. The rest of the
> >> > patch was docs.
> >>
> >> My initial reaction was the same as Peter's, but after seeing the small
> >> size of the patch I reconsidered. It seems to make sense that BEGIN
> >> should be an exact synonym for START TRANSACTION.
> >
> > Let me give you my logic on this --- if people think of BEGIN and START
> > TRANSACTION as the same, and they do \h begin, they aren't going to see
> > the read only and isolation options for START TRANSACTION, and I doubt
> > they are going to think to look there because they think they are the
> > same. That's why I think it is good to add those clauses to BEGIN
> > WORK/TRANSACTION.
> >
>
> Since BEGIN isn't standard, wouldn't it be time to redirect them on the
> BEGIN manpage to the START TRANSACTION manpage and tell them there that
> BEGIN does not support the full syntax of START TRANSACTION?

Yea, we could do that, and if it was hard to add, we would, but it seems
easier to just say BEGIN and START TRANSACTION are the same except the
later is standard, rather than have the later have additional
functionality too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073