On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> writes:
>>> Err, I think you misunderstood what I said. My implementation
>>> uses SAVEPOINTs already. The point is having some API where you
>>> do not have to care of you are already in a transaction or not.
>> It's not that hard, is it?
>> if (PQtransactionStatus(conn) == PQTRANS_IDLE)
>> PQexec(conn, "BEGIN");
>> else
>> PQexec(conn, "SAVEPOINT foo");
>
> Its not exactly convenient either, especially in the case of
> modular code that may be developed by different people. Anyways,
> like I said I have a solution in my framework to make life of
> module developers easier. Obviously proper nested transactions
> would be the ideal, but so it goes. I was just throwing this out
> here when I saw Peter's comment.
+1. Right now it's not as big a deal since we don't allow transaction
control inside functions, but if we ever get that ability it will
become much more of a pain to write modular code that deals with
savepoints/subtransactions.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
