On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:12:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
> >> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
> >> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
> >> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.
> 
> > This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current 
> > code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,
> 
> Drat.  Scratch that plan then.  (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
> states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)

What about using the command tag of SUBBEGIN &c ?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!
cp me into your .signature file to help me spread!

In response to

• Re: Nested Transaction TODO list at 2004-07-04 03:12:56 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andreas Pflug	Date: 2004-07-04 08:10:24
	Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup
Previous:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2004-07-04 04:10:52
	Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup