Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For me, the "start of transaction" is not about time, but about grouping > a set of statements into one. So making the exact moment of "start" be > the first statement that actually does something with data seems > perfectly reasonable.
This might be a perfectly logical change in semantics, but what benefit does it provide over the old way of doing things? What does BEGIN actually do now, from a user's perspective? At present, it "starts a transaction block", which is pretty simple. If we adopted the proposed change, it would "change the state of the system so that the next command is part of a new transaction". This is naturally more complex; but more importantly, what benefit does it ACTUALLY provide to the user? (I can't see one, but perhaps I'm missing something...) > Delaying the locking effects of transactions as long as possible can > increase performance overall, not just for pathological clients that sit > on idle open transactions. I agree, but this is irrelevant to the semantics of now(). -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
