Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 18:57 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
>> I think you can make the case that this should be an error, or at least
>> that's how it got on the TODO list. I can always remove it if people
>> don't want the item completed.
> The reason this was added is that modular applications expect that a locally
> issued BEGIN ... COMMIT executes a transaction, whereas now you don't know
> what you're getting. I think this change would have merit.
But how is making BEGIN an error going to improve life for such an
application? It'll be just as broken. In fact, if the app depends on
getting an error from BEGIN in any critical way, it'll be *more* broken
if it's ever run under the default warning-only setting.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-01-02 15:04:43|
|Subject: Re: Status of Fix Domain Casting TODO|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-01-02 14:47:06|
|Subject: Re: Reverse-sort indexes and NULLS FIRST/LAST sorting |