On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:53 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 18:57 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > I think you can make the case that this should be an error, or at least
> > that's how it got on the TODO list. I can always remove it if people
> > don't want the item completed.
> The reason this was added is that modular applications expect that a locally
> issued BEGIN ... COMMIT executes a transaction, whereas now you don't know
> what you're getting. I think this change would have merit.
Interesting point. My only comment is, "Do it one way or the other,
don't give me a user or a distribution packager a foot gun."
E.g., no GUC parameter. Just change the behavior or don't.
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-01-02 17:33:25|
|Subject: Re: TODO: Add a GUC to control whether BEGIN inside |
|Previous:||From: Lukas Kahwe Smith||Date: 2007-01-02 16:48:15|
|Subject: Re: TODO: Add a GUC to control whether BEGIN inside|