From: | "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Date: | 2006-05-10 16:10:57 |
Message-ID: | 65937bea0605100910m23bb45eeud50a3f2bb6d0390c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I dont think anyone is arguing that such an application is not
broken. We should see how we can stop a developer from writing buggy
code.
IMO, such a GUC variable _should_ be created and turned on by default.
In case an application fails, at the least, the developer knows
that his application is broken; then he can choose to turn off the GUC
variable to let the old behaviour prevail (he might want to do this to
let a production env. continue).
In the absence of such a feature, we are encouraging developers to
write buggy code. This GUC variable can be removed and the behaviour
can be made default over the next couple of releases.
My two paise...
On 5/10/06, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
>
>
> --On Mittwoch, Mai 10, 2006 12:36:07 +0200 Mario Weilguni
> <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> Such a behavior is already broken by design. I think it's not desirable
> >> to blindly do
> >> transaction start or commit without tracking the current transaction
> >> state. So these wrappers
> >> need to be fixed first.
> >
> > You mean broken like "transform_null_equals"? Or "add_missing_from"?
>
> You missed my point. I don't say that such a GUC won't be useful, but
> applications which
> don't care about what they are currently doing with a database are broken.
>
>
> --
>
> Bernd
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Benoit | 2006-05-10 16:23:38 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-05-10 15:59:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Benoit | 2006-05-10 16:23:38 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2006-05-10 15:36:16 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |