Re: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions
Date: 2007-03-08 00:49:17
Message-ID: 87d53k8sqa.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> * is_top_level: TRUE if command is being driven directly from
> exec_simple_query or exec_execute_message, else FALSE (this would
> need to be passed through PortalRun, so it gets this parameter added
> too).

...

> The point of adding is_top_level is to provide a simpler, more reliable
> means for PreventTransactionChain and related functions to detect
> whether a function is trying to invoke a non-transaction-block-safe
> command. Currently we rely on an ugly test involving seeing if the
> statement node is in the QueryContext, but that's always been a kluge,
> and I'm not sure that it works 100% even today. I'd like to get rid
> of the QueryContext global altogether.

I'm not exactly following. How does the exec_simple_query or
exec_execute_message tell you whether you're in a transaction?

Can't you exec_simple_query("BEGIN;") and then exec_simple_query a second
query in the same transaction?

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-08 01:01:51 Re: Grouped Index Tuples / Clustered Indexes
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-08 00:40:16 Re: [HACKERS] WITH/RECURSIVE plans