| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tommi Maekitalo <t(dot)maekitalo(at)epgmbh(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Date: | 2006-05-11 20:07:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20060511200711.GN99570@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:05:57AM +0200, Tommi Maekitalo wrote:
> I'd vote for breaking broken applications and leave the database-administrator
> reactivate this currently broken behavior of postgresql via GUC.
+1...
As for whether this should or shouldn't abort the current transaction,
I'd argue that it should. Otherwise it's likely that your first commit
is actually bogus, which means you just hosed yourself.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Hurt | 2006-05-11 20:09:01 | Compressing table images |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 20:00:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-11 20:16:05 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-05-11 07:55:01 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |