On Tuesday 02 November 2010 18:33:15 Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > * You wont see an error if the next command after the IDLE in
> > transaction is a COMMIT/ROLLBACK. I don*t see any sensible way
> > around that.
> Well, on a ROLLBACK I'm not sure it's a problem.  On a COMMIT,
> couldn't you call a function to check for it in CommitTransaction
> and PrepareTransaction?
Sure, throwing an error somewhere wouldnt be that hard. But at the moment a 
COMMIT is always successfull (and just reporting a ROLLBACK in a failed txn). 
Doesn't seem to be something to changed lightly.

Does anybody have any idea why COMMIT is allowed there? Seems pretty strange 
to me.

Andres

In response to

• Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation at 2010-11-02 17:33:15 from Kevin Grittner

Responses

• Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation at 2010-11-02 21:52:17 from Alvaro Herrera
• Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation at 2010-11-02 21:59:15 from Kevin Grittner

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-11-02 21:47:39
	Subject: Re: Hash support for arrays
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-11-02 21:28:01
	Subject: Re: Hash support for arrays