"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we're talking at cross purposes here... If the client doesn't use
> explicit transactions, as you say is common, then you're obviously not
> defining prepared statements inside explicit transactions either.
This whole discussion seems to be considering only the case of PREPAREs
issued as SQL statements, by a programmer who is fully cognizant of
where he's beginning and ending transactions.
The issue I was trying to raise at the beginning of the thread was: what
about prepared statements created by client libraries (think JDBC for
instance) using the V3 protocol Parse message? Rolling back a
successful prepare because of a later transaction failure seems like
exactly not what such a library would want.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
