On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Err, I think you misunderstood what I said. My implementation
uses SAVEPOINTs already. The point is having some API where you
do not have to care of you are already in a transaction or not.
It's not that hard, is it?
if (PQtransactionStatus(conn) == PQTRANS_IDLE)
PQexec(conn, "BEGIN");
else
PQexec(conn, "SAVEPOINT foo");
Its not exactly convenient either, especially in the case of
modular code that may be developed by different people. Anyways,
like I said I have a solution in my framework to make life of
module developers easier. Obviously proper nested transactions
would be the ideal, but so it goes. I was just throwing this out
here when I saw Peter's comment.
+1. Right now it's not as big a deal since we don't allow transaction
control inside functions, but if we ever get that ability it will
become much more of a pain to write modular code that deals with
savepoints/subtransactions.
--
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
