Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:03 -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 15:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somebody who wants the
>>>> above behavior can send "ROLLBACK; DISCARD ALL".
>>>>
>>> ...which generates an ERROR if no transaction is in progress and fills
>>> the log needlessly.
>>>
>> Well, it's a WARNING, but your point is taken. Can't a clueful interface
>> just check what the transaction status of the connection is, rather than
>> unconditionally issuing a ROLLBACK?
>>
>
> I think it can, but can't a clueful server do this and avoid the problem
> of non-clueful interfaces?
>
> This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
> inside the server as well and have done with it.
>
>
Could we maybe have some flavor of ROLLBACK that doesn't issue a warning
if no transaction is in progress? There is precedent for this sort of
facility - DROP ... IF EXISTS.
cheers
andrew