On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:12:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
> >> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
> >> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
> >> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.
>
> > This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current
> > code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,
>
> Drat. Scratch that plan then. (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
> states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)
What about using the command tag of SUBBEGIN &c ?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!
cp me into your .signature file to help me spread!
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
