Re: Nested Transaction TODO list - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Nested Transaction TODO list
Date
Msg-id 1398.1089422879@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested Transaction TODO list  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [shrug...] I'd counsel leaving this as-is. 

> What information are we loosing by having START and BEGIN use the same
> nodes?  Knowing what keyword they used to start the transaction?

Exactly.

> Seems that would only be important if we wanted them to behave
> differently, which we don't, I think.

Whether we want them to behave differently or not, we need to preserve
the difference.  The prior cases where the parser smashed two different
inputs into the same parse tree have all been "because it doesn't
matter", and sure enough we've usually eventually decided it did matter.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: thread safety tests
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: More vacuum.c refactoring