Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN inside transaction should be an error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
Date: 2006-05-26 16:43:18
Message-ID: 26860.1148661798@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here's the patch:

Wrong default (there was no consensus for changing the default behavior,
and you need to tone down the description strings). A less verbose
GUC variable name would be a good idea, too. Something like
"error_double_begin" would be more in keeping with most of our other names.

Doesn't actually *honor* the GUC variable, just changes the behavior
outright. This betrays a certain lack of testing.

Also, lacks documentation. Please grep the tree for all references to
some existing GUC variable(s) to see what you missed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-05-26 17:18:19 Re: LIKE, leading percent, bind parameters and indexes
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-26 16:38:41 Re: LIKE, leading percent, bind parameters and indexes

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-26 19:51:12 Re: AIX FAQ - IPv6 Fun
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-05-26 16:35:41 Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN inside transaction should be an error