Re: sql insert function

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: "Chris Ochs" <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sql insert function
Date: 2004-01-13 18:53:31
Message-ID: 200401131853.31515.dev@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tuesday 13 January 2004 17:46, Chris Ochs wrote:
> Yes it was in my function. I thought the docs said that BEGIN and END had
> no effect on transactions though? Plus wouldn't there have to be a
> transaction active since I was not using autocommit and the inserts did in
> fact commit?
>
> I suspect it is the end statement doing this though, I'll take it out and
> see what happens.

I think you're right - I looked back at your earlier posts and you are mixing
up plpgsql and sql function syntax (easy enough to do).

BEGIN...END bracket the body of a plpgsql function, but control a transaction
in the SQL function. The BEGIN would have been ignored, the END would have
committed the current transaction.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Hall 2004-01-13 19:05:43 Re: Postgress and MYSQL
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2004-01-13 18:48:23 Re: Nested transaction - I am a bank ??