Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think we'd be far better off to maintain the position that a failed >> BEGIN does not start a transaction, under any circumstances.
> Also agreed. >> To do >> that, we cannot have this new option attached to the BEGIN, ... > Eh, why not? Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the thread, but I had the idea that there was some implementation reason why not. If not, we could still load the option onto BEGIN ... but I still find myself liking the idea of a separate command better, because of the locking issue. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers