Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Nested Transaction TODO list

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested Transaction TODO list
Date: 2004-07-04 04:11:24
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:12:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
> >> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
> >> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
> >> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.
> > This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current 
> > code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,
> Drat.  Scratch that plan then.  (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
> states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)

What about using the command tag of SUBBEGIN &c ?

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]>)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!
cp me into your .signature file to help me spread!

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2004-07-04 08:10:24
Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-07-04 04:10:52
Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group