On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 20:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So I'm of the opinion that there's no good reason to change either our
code or our docs. The standard-incompatibility is with BEGIN, not
SET TRANSACTION, and it's already documented.
That's a good case. Patch withdrawn.
--
Simon Riggs
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe the reason the spec is written in the particular way that
it is is that they wanted to allow, e.g.,
set transaction isolation level serializable;
set transaction read only;
sql-command;
sql-command;
...
Tom wrote:
So I'm of the opinion that there's no good reason to change either our
code or our docs. The standard-incompatibility is with BEGIN, not
SET TRANSACTION, and it's already documented.
Yes.
PS: the proposed patch is buggy as can be anyway: it applies the
change
even if !doit, and
[ back to this patch ]
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The SQL:2003 standard definition of SET TRANSACTION differs in major
ways from PostgreSQL's, which produces some interesting behaviour.
We currently claim conformance, though this is not accurate.
I'm still of the opinion that
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 15:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom's comment on this from the patch queue is that the standard assume
autocommit off, which affect some of your analysis below.
This isn't an important area for me, but I don't think we follow the
standard in the way we do it now and we
Tom's comment on this from the patch queue is that the standard assume
autocommit off, which affect some of your analysis below.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
The SQL:2003 standard definition of SET TRANSACTION differs in major
The SQL:2003 standard definition of SET TRANSACTION differs in major
ways from PostgreSQL's, which produces some interesting behaviour.
We currently claim conformance, though this is not accurate.
...
SQL2003
If a set transaction statement that does not specify LOCAL is
executed, then
Case:
i)
