Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error

Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:59 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:10 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
> > You want to make a GUC that makes:
> >
> > BEGIN;
> > BEGIN;
> >
> > Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly
> > useless feature...
>
> If a command doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it should be an
> error. That seems like a throroughly useful feature to me.

Maybe. I just want to emphasize that it will break existing applications.