Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 16:14 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> I notice that we allow commands such as
> >>>
> >>> SET TRANSACTION read only read write read only;
> >>>
> >>> BEGIN TRANSACTION read only read only read only;
> >>>
> >>> Unsurprisingly, these violate the SQL Standard:
> >>> * p.977 section 19.1 syntax (1)
> >>> * p.957 section 17.3 syntax (2)
> >> Well, we allow a lot of things. Violations of the SQL standard happen
> >> when a command that appears in the standard doesn't do what the standard
> >> says. Allowing commands that are not in the standard is not a violation.
> >
> > Except when the standard explicitly forbids it, as with the above.
>
> No, it just means that the statement "SET TRANSACTION read only read
> write read only;" doesn't conform to the standard, and it's therefore
> implementation-dependent what it does. See the meaning of "shall" in
> Syntax Rules, section "6.3.3.2 Terms denoting rule requirements".
>
> I agree with Tom that the 2nd form is harmless, but we should throw an
> error for the first.
Added to TODO:
Prevent the specification of conflicting transaction read/writeoptions
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg00684.php
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
