From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(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 08:10:16 |
Message-ID: | 20060510081016.GA14476@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:41:46AM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> > > Could we make BEGIN fail when we already are in a transaction?
> >
> > We could, but it'd probably break about as many apps as it fixed.
> > I wonder whether php shouldn't be complaining about this, instead
> > --- doesn't php have its own ideas about controlling where the
> > transaction commit points are?
>
> In fact it would break many application, so it should be at least controllable
> by a setting or GUC.
You want to make a GUC that makes:
BEGIN;
BEGIN;
Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly
useless feature...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 08:14:22 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 07:41:46 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 08:14:22 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 07:41:46 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |