Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN inside transaction should be an error

"Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here's the patch:

Wrong default (there was no consensus for changing the default behavior,
and you need to tone down the description strings). A less verbose
GUC variable name would be a good idea, too. Something like
"error_double_begin" would be more in keeping with most of our other names.

Doesn't actually *honor* the GUC variable, just changes the behavior
outright. This betrays a certain lack of testing.

Also, lacks documentation. Please grep the tree for all references to
some existing GUC variable(s) to see what you missed.

regards, tom lane