On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:14:25PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for
> > subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole
> > transaction tree.
> Question: with the new syntax, would issuing a BEGIN inside a already
> started transaction result in an error?
> My concern is about say, a pl/pgsql function that opened and closed a
> transation. This could result in different behaviors depending if
> called from within a transaction, which is not true of the old syntax.
> Then again, since a statement is always transactionally wrapped, would
> it be required to always issue SUBBEGIN if issued from within a
> function? This would address my concern.
Yes, I was thinking about this because the current code behaves wrong if
a BEGIN is issued and not inside a transaction block. So we'd need to
do something special in SPI -- not sure exactly what, but the effect
would be that the function can't issue BEGIN at all and can only issue
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2004-07-02 17:24:00|
|Subject: Re: Subtle bug in clog.c|
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2004-07-02 17:22:31|
|Subject: Re: anonymous cvs failure|