Re: RESET SESSION v3

On 4/12/07, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:08 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > I think implicit ABORT would annoy various tools that
> > partially parse user sql and expect to know what transaction
> > state currently is. For them a new tranaction control statement
> > would be nuisance.
>
> That's not the only alternative: we could also either disallow all of
> the "ALL" variants in a transaction block, or allow RESET SESSION inside
> a transaction block.
>
> I've committed the patch basically as-is: thanks for the patch. I don't
> feel strongly about the above, but if there's a consensus, we can change
> the behavior later.

Thanks for reviewing it.

One argument for top-level ALL commands is also that
poolers and other tools in the middle of connection can track
them. But it could also argued that they should have similar
rules than ordinary CLOSE/DEALLOCATE statements. Also it seems
that disallowing them inside functions for no good reason is
couterproductive.

But I also dont feel strongly either way.

--
marko