On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:17:21PM +0200, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 19:14:25 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
> >I see. Then I don't fully agree with your rules. Let's say I find that
> >the rules are very good guidelines, but they fail WRT the isolation
> >level, which is a special exception.
>
> If there is not a compelling reason for making things more
> complicated, I vote for implementing the most simple usable solution,
> i.e. the whole transaction tree has to run with the same isolation
> level.
Ok, I'll do this and if it's needed the other thing can be done later.
> BTW, do we have to invent a new syntax for starting and ending
> subtransactions? COMMIT/ROLLBACK should be no problem. But does
> BEGIN [subtransaction] conflict with BEGIN ... END in pl/pgslq?
I don't think we have to create a new syntax for starting a
subtransaction in the main parser. But the PL/pgSQL parser will have to
be changed somehow. I don't know a bit about parsers but maybe it's
possible to require a "BEGIN TRANSACTION" command to start a new
transaction so it doesn't conflicts with plpgsql's BEGIN. It'll be
confusing for sure if we don't do it this way, I think.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")
