Re: Nested Transaction TODO list

Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
>> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
>> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
>> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.

> This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current 
> code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,

Drat.  Scratch that plan then.  (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)
        regards, tom lane