Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 02:32:44AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > >What I'd like to do is start the transaction block before the function > > >is called if we are not in a transaction block. This would mean that > > >when the function calls BEGIN it won't be the first one -- it will > > >actually start a subtransaction and will be able to end it without harm. > > >I think this can be done automatically at the SPI level. > > > > Please tell me there is some sanity in this. If I follow you > > correctly, at no point should anyone be able to issue an explicit > > begin/end because they are already in an explicit/implicit transaction > > by default... How is the user/programmer to know when this is the case? > > I'm not sure I understand you. Of course you can issue begin/end. What > you can't do is issue begin/end inside a function -- you always use > subbegin/subcommit in that case.
And if you use SUBBEGIN/SUBCOMMIT in a function that isn't already call inside from an explicit transaction, it will work because the call itself is its own implicit transaction, right? -- 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 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
