On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As committed, DISCARD ALL does everything but cannot be issued inside a
transaction block.
I'd like to propose that DISCARD ALL also issue a ROLLBACK command if it
is issued from within a
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As committed, DISCARD ALL does everything but cannot be issued inside a
transaction block.
I'd like to propose that DISCARD ALL also issue a ROLLBACK command if it
is issued from within a transaction block.
That was *intentional* to prevent mistakes.
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
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,
Simon Riggs wrote:
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
Simon Riggs wrote:
This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
inside the server as well and have done with it.
You mean prefork? That would be neat. I don't think it's all that
impossible.
--
Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could we maybe have some flavor of ROLLBACK that doesn't issue a warning
if no transaction is in progress? There is precedent for this sort of
facility - DROP ... IF EXISTS.
Something that would actually be doable for 8.3 would be to downgrade
this
