| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transaction TODO list |
| Date: | 2004-07-04 03:12:56 |
| Message-ID: | 26794.1088910776@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
>> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
>> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
>> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.
> This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current
> code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,
Drat. Scratch that plan then. (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2004-07-04 03:33:35 | Re: LinuxTag wrapup |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-04 02:33:53 | Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions |