Bruce Momjian wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I object to adding unnecessary complications like that.

> Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics?  The
> changes to the code were the addition of only one line.  The rest of the
> patch was docs.

My initial reaction was the same as Peter's, but after seeing the small
size of the patch I reconsidered.  It seems to make sense that BEGIN
should be an exact synonym for START TRANSACTION.

Let me give you my logic on this --- if people think of BEGIN and START TRANSACTION as the same, and they do \h begin, they aren't going to see the read only and isolation options for START TRANSACTION, and I doubt they are going to think to look there because they think they are the same. That's why I think it is good to add those clauses to BEGIN WORK/TRANSACTION.

Since BEGIN isn't standard, wouldn't it be time to redirect them on the BEGIN manpage to the START TRANSACTION manpage and tell them there that BEGIN does not support the full syntax of START TRANSACTION?


# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #

---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to