Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 4/12/07, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:08 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > > I think implicit ABORT would annoy various tools that
> > > partially parse user sql and expect to know what transaction
> > > state currently is. For them a new tranaction control statement
> > > would be nuisance.
> > That's not the only alternative: we could also either disallow all of
> > the "ALL" variants in a transaction block, or allow RESET SESSION inside
> > a transaction block.
> > I've committed the patch basically as-is: thanks for the patch. I don't
> > feel strongly about the above, but if there's a consensus, we can change
> > the behavior later.
> Thanks for reviewing it.
> One argument for top-level ALL commands is also that
> poolers and other tools in the middle of connection can track
> them. But it could also argued that they should have similar
> rules than ordinary CLOSE/DEALLOCATE statements. Also it seems
> that disallowing them inside functions for no good reason is
> But I also dont feel strongly either way.
I was thinking we would throw a WARNING rather than an error for RESET
SESSION inside a transaction.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly