| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Date: | 2006-05-10 15:36:16 |
| Message-ID: | 44620870.4030906@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut skrev:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:10 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
>
>> You want to make a GUC that makes:
>>
>> BEGIN;
>> BEGIN;
>>
>> Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly
>> useless feature...
>>
>
> If a command doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it should be an error.
> That seems like a throroughly useful feature to me.
>
>
And it would follow sql99 that demand an error. I'm surprised
everyone seems to ignore that part (except maybe Peter who is the
one I happend to reply to :-).
A guc that people can turn off if they have old broken code, that
would work for me.
/Dennis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2006-05-10 15:41:30 | Re: bug? non working casts for domain |
| Previous Message | Nis Jorgensen | 2006-05-10 15:30:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-05-10 16:10:57 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2006-05-10 13:01:45 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |