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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us [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
