| From: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Date: | 2006-05-10 10:31:52 |
| Message-ID: | 200605101231.52545.mweilguni@sime.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:59 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:10 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
> > You want to make a GUC that makes:
> >
> > BEGIN;
> > BEGIN;
> >
> > Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly
> > useless feature...
>
> If a command doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it should be an
> error. That seems like a throroughly useful feature to me.
Maybe. I just want to emphasize that it will break existing applications.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 10:36:07 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2006-05-10 09:44:39 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 10:36:07 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2006-05-10 09:44:39 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |