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...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Nested Transaction TODO list at 2004-07-04 02:27:52 from Oliver Jowett

Responses

• Re: Nested Transaction TODO list at 2004-07-04 04:09:58 from Oliver Jowett
• Re: Nested Transaction TODO list at 2004-07-04 04:11:24 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Mike Mascari	Date: 2004-07-04 03:33:35
	Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup
Previous:	From: Oliver Jowett	Date: 2004-07-04 02:33:53
	Subject: Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions