Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dennis Bjorklund
Subject Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0407060811210.21809-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Responses Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > begin/end because they are already in an explicit/implicit transaction
> > by default...  How is the user/programmer to know when this is the case?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand you.  Of course you can issue begin/end.  What
> you can't do is issue begin/end inside a function -- you always use
> subbegin/subcommit in that case.

I've not understood why we need new tokens for this case. Maybe you've 
explained it somewhere that I've missed. But surely the server know if you 
are in a transaction or not, and can differentiate on the first BEGIN and 
the next BEGIN.

-- 
/Dennis Björklund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug with view definitions?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery Features