From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Ochs" <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: sql insert function |
Date: | 2004-01-13 18:53:31 |
Message-ID: | 200401131853.31515.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 17:46, Chris Ochs wrote:
> Yes it was in my function. I thought the docs said that BEGIN and END had
> no effect on transactions though? Plus wouldn't there have to be a
> transaction active since I was not using autocommit and the inserts did in
> fact commit?
>
> I suspect it is the end statement doing this though, I'll take it out and
> see what happens.
I think you're right - I looked back at your earlier posts and you are mixing
up plpgsql and sql function syntax (easy enough to do).
BEGIN...END bracket the body of a plpgsql function, but control a transaction
in the SQL function. The BEGIN would have been ignored, the END would have
committed the current transaction.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Hall | 2004-01-13 19:05:43 | Re: Postgress and MYSQL |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-01-13 18:48:23 | Re: Nested transaction - I am a bank ?? |