Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Nested Transaction TODO list

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested Transaction TODO list
Date: 2004-07-04 03:12:56
Message-ID: 26794.1088910776@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group