| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 17:17:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20131122171741.GA32176@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:24:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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).
Good points. I have modified the attached patch to do as you suggested.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| xact.diff | text/x-diff | 13.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-22 17:18:37 | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-11-22 16:32:07 | Re: Can we trust fsync? |