| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Morten Hustveit <morten(at)eventures(dot)vc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
| Date: | 2013-11-22 13:24:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20131122132435.GJ6041@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> OK, here is a patch which changes ABORT from NOTICE to WARNING, and SET
> from ERROR (which is new in 9.4) to WARNING.
I don't like that this patch changes RequireTransactionChain() from
actually requiring one, to a function that maybe requires a transaction
chain, and maybe it only complains about there not being one. I mean,
it's like you had named the new throwError boolean as "notReally" or
something like that. Also, the new comment paragraph is bad because it
explains who must pass true/false, instead of what's the effect of each
value (and let the callers choose which value to pass).
I would create a separate function to implement this, maybe
WarnUnlessInTransactionBlock() or something like that. That would make
the patch a good deal smaller (because not changing existing callers).
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-22 13:38:08 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-22 13:12:45 | commit fest 2013-11 week 1 report |