Tom Lane wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org> writes:
>> Err, I think you misunderstood what I said. My implementation uses
>> SAVEPOINTs already. The point is having some API where you do not have
>> to care of you are already in a transaction or not.
> It's not that hard, is it?
> if (PQtransactionStatus(conn) == PQTRANS_IDLE)
> PQexec(conn, "BEGIN");
> PQexec(conn, "SAVEPOINT foo");
Its not exactly convenient either, especially in the case of modular
code that may be developed by different people. Anyways, like I said I
have a solution in my framework to make life of module developers
easier. Obviously proper nested transactions would be the ideal, but so
it goes. I was just throwing this out here when I saw Peter's comment.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Boreham||Date: 2007-01-02 19:02:40|
|Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-01-02 19:00:27|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] xlog directory at initdb time|