On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:03 -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 15:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >  Somebody who wants the
> > > above behavior can send "ROLLBACK; DISCARD ALL".
> > 
> > ...which generates an ERROR if no transaction is in progress and fills
> > the log needlessly.
> Well, it's a WARNING, but your point is taken. Can't a clueful interface
> just check what the transaction status of the connection is, rather than
> unconditionally issuing a ROLLBACK?

I think it can, but can't a clueful server do this and avoid the problem
of non-clueful interfaces?

This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
inside the server as well and have done with it.

  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to