From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 21:03:51 |
Message-ID: | 20060510210351.GV99570@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:31:52PM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> 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.
If the existing application is trying to start a new transaction from
within an existing one, I'd say it's already broken and we're just
hiding that fact.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-10 21:05:24 | Re: [TODO] Allow commenting of variables ... |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-10 20:39:25 | Re: Need a help - Performance issues |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-10 21:26:08 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-05-10 20:23:47 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |