Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think we'd be far better off to maintain the position that a failed
>> BEGIN does not start a transaction, under any circumstances.
> Also agreed.
>> To do
>> that, we cannot have this new option attached to the BEGIN, ...
> Eh, why not?
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the thread, but I had
the idea that there was some implementation reason why not. If not,
we could still load the option onto BEGIN ... but I still find myself
liking the idea of a separate command better, because of the locking
issue.
regards, tom lane