Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is my counter-proposal to Bruce's dblink patch. Any comments?
Minor coding suggestion: to me it seems messy to do
> + int*openCursorCount = NULL;
> + bool *newXactForCursor = NULL;
> ! openCursorCount = &pconn->openC
Bruce Momjian writes:
> The problem with not using rconn is that we are not saving the
> transaction status at the _start_ of the cursor open. If we don't do
> that, we have no way of knowing on close if _we_ opened the transaction
> or whether it was opened by the user.
Oh, I see. In that case
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Well, as I said in the patch email:
> The reported problem is that dblink_open/dblink_close() (for cursor
> reads) do a BEGIN/COMMIT regardless of the transaction state of the
> remote connection. There was code in dblink.c to track the remote
> tr
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:31:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:38:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I don't know if people want this for 8.1 or 8.2.
>
> > 8.1, IMHO. It's a bug fix. :)
>
> Not unless Joe Conway signs off on
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:38:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I don't know if people want this for 8.1 or 8.2.
> 8.1, IMHO. It's a bug fix. :)
Not unless Joe Conway signs off on it ...
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:38:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I'm not a member of this list (yet), so please CC me on responses
> > and discussion. The patch below seems to be completion of work
> > already started, because the boolean remoteTrFlag was already
> > defined, and all I had to add
> I'm not a member of this list (yet), so please CC me on responses and
> discussion. The patch below seems to be completion of work already
> started, because the boolean remoteTrFlag was already defined, and all I
> had to add was its setting and two references. I hope someone will find
> it usef
