Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error

From: Tommi Maekitalo <t(dot)maekitalo(at)epgmbh(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
Date: 2006-05-11 06:05:57
Message-ID: 200605110805.57392.t.maekitalo@epgmbh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 22:23 schrieb Mark Dilger:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:41:46AM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >>>>Could we make BEGIN fail when we already are in a transaction?
...
>
> Or if you really want to screw things up, you could require COMMIT; COMMIT;
> to finish off the transaction started by BEGIN; BEGIN; We could just
> silently keep the transaction alive after the first COMMIT; ;)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

I would expect after a COMMIT without an error, that my transaction is
committed. When the system accidently issued a second BEGIN, this would not
be the case.

And what about BEGIN; BEGIN; ROLLBACK; COMMIT; then? Should the rollback be
ignored also?

I'd vote for breaking broken applications and leave the database-administrator
reactivate this currently broken behavior of postgresql via GUC.

Tommi

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-05-11 07:28:16 Re: .pgpass file and unix domain sockets
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2006-05-11 05:11:30 Warning -- PostgreSQL Anniversary Cutoff Approaching

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-05-11 07:17:36 Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2006-05-11 04:41:35 Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error