Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... I think we
> > should just do an automatic COMMIT if it is the first statement of a
> > transaction, and if not, throw the same error we used to throw.  We are
> > performing autocommit for SET at the start of a transaction now anyway,
> > so it isn't totally strange to do it for TRUNCATE, etc. too.  In fact,
> > you can just put the xact commit check in the same place SET is handled
> > in postgres.c.  It isn't great, but it is clean.  ;-)
> Well, "clean" isn't the adjective I would use ;-), but this might be the

Clean in coding terms, _only_.

> most useful approach.  The analogy to SET hadn't occurred to me.

Yea, the SET behavior appeared pretty queer to me, but now that I have
used it, I am getting used to it.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to