Alvaro Herrera Munoz wrote:
> 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.
Good.
>
> > 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.
I don't think we will be starting new subtransactions in pl/pgsql, will
we? I suppose we could allow it some day, but I don't see a need to do
it right away.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073