Re: SET TRANSACTION not compliant with SQL:2003

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas OSB SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET TRANSACTION not compliant with SQL:2003
Date: 2008-04-09 12:43:31
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902F908F6@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom wrote:
> So I'm of the opinion that there's no good reason to change either our
> code or our docs. The standard-incompatibility is with BEGIN, not
> SET TRANSACTION, and it's already documented.

Yes.

> PS: the proposed patch is buggy as can be anyway: it applies the
change
> even if !doit, and it causes START TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL xxx
> to affect not only the current but the next transaction, which surely
> cannot be justified by any reading of the spec ;-)

In IBM Informix the command SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL xxx,
returns an error when issued outside a BEGIN WORK -- COMMIT transaction
block.

set transaction isolation level read uncommitted;

255: Not in transaction.

In their latest docs they state:
"The SET TRANSACTION statement complies with ANSI SQL-92."

So I agree that there is no need to change what we have.

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2008-04-09 12:49:58 Re: Free Space Map data structure
Previous Message Andrew Chernow 2008-04-09 12:35:11 Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a