From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Date: | 2006-05-10 13:01:45 |
Message-ID: | F0B1AE6FF7E3429E112FD3E0@[192.168.100.105] |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
--On Mittwoch, Mai 10, 2006 12:36:07 +0200 Mario Weilguni
<mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> wrote:
>> Such a behavior is already broken by design. I think it's not desirable
>> to blindly do
>> transaction start or commit without tracking the current transaction
>> state. So these wrappers
>> need to be fixed first.
>
> You mean broken like "transform_null_equals"? Or "add_missing_from"?
You missed my point. I don't say that such a GUC won't be useful, but
applications which
don't care about what they are currently doing with a database are broken.
--
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-05-10 13:29:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
Previous Message | Lars Haugseth | 2006-05-10 12:54:41 | Re: BUG #2429: Explain does not report object's schema |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2006-05-10 15:36:16 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-05-10 10:36:07 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |