On 5/10/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> How do other database deal with this? Either they nest BEGIN/COMMIT or
> they probably throw an error without aborting the transaction, which is
> pretty much what we do. Is there a database that actually aborts a
> whole transaction just for an extraneous begin?
Probably not. The SQL99 spec does say (in describing START TRANSACTION,
which is the standard spelling of BEGIN)
1) If a <start transaction statement> statement is executed when an
SQL-transaction is currently active, then an exception condition
is raised: invalid transaction state - active SQL-transaction.
*However*, they are almost certainly expecting that that condition only
causes the START command to be ignored; not that it should bounce the
whole transaction. So I think the argument that this is required by
the spec is a bit off base.
regards, tom lane
Well, actually informix throw an error... at least, my 4gl programs
always abort when a second "begin work" is found inside a
transaction...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
