Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
От | Gurjeet Singh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 65937bea0605100910m23bb45eeud50a3f2bb6d0390c@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BEGIN inside transaction should be an error (Dennis Bjorklund <db@zigo.dhs.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I dont think anyone is arguing that such an application is not broken. We should see how we can stop a developer from writing buggy code. IMO, such a GUC variable _should_ be created and turned on by default. In case an application fails, at the least, the developer knows that his application is broken; then he can choose to turn off the GUC variable to let the old behaviour prevail (he might want to do this to let a production env. continue). In the absence of such a feature, we are encouraging developers to write buggy code. This GUC variable can be removed and the behaviour can be made default over the next couple of releases. My two paise... On 5/10/06, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote: > > > --On Mittwoch, Mai 10, 2006 12:36:07 +0200 Mario Weilguni > <mweilguni@sime.com> wrote: > > >> Such a behavior is already broken by design. I think it's not desirable > >> to blindly do > >> transaction start or commit without tracking the current transaction > >> state. So these wrappers > >> need to be fixed first. > > > > You mean broken like "transform_null_equals"? Or "add_missing_from"? > > You missed my point. I don't say that such a GUC won't be useful, but > applications which > don't care about what they are currently doing with a database are broken. > > > -- > > Bernd > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: