| From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Mario Weilguni" <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "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: | 2006-05-11 07:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0605110055l5165f15dx2abdff88f6b4c679@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 5/11/06, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:03:51PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > If the existing application is trying to start a new transaction from
> > within an existing one, I'd say it's already broken and we're just
> > hiding that fact.
>
> Well maybe, except the extra BEGIN is harmless.
It _not_ harmless as it will be probably followed by 'extra' commit.
Those few cases where it does not happen do not matter in light
of cases where it happens.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-05-11 07:55:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-11 07:28:16 | Re: .pgpass file and unix domain sockets |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 20:07:11 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-11 07:17:36 | Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling |