From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SET TRANSACTION not compliant with SQL:2003 |
Date: | 2008-04-09 12:43:31 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902F908F6@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom wrote:
> So I'm of the opinion that there's no good reason to change either our
> code or our docs. The standard-incompatibility is with BEGIN, not
> SET TRANSACTION, and it's already documented.
Yes.
> PS: the proposed patch is buggy as can be anyway: it applies the
change
> even if !doit, and it causes START TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL xxx
> to affect not only the current but the next transaction, which surely
> cannot be justified by any reading of the spec ;-)
In IBM Informix the command SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL xxx,
returns an error when issued outside a BEGIN WORK -- COMMIT transaction
block.
set transaction isolation level read uncommitted;
255: Not in transaction.
In their latest docs they state:
"The SET TRANSACTION statement complies with ANSI SQL-92."
So I agree that there is no need to change what we have.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-04-09 12:49:58 | Re: Free Space Map data structure |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-04-09 12:35:11 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a |