Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c2d9e70e0605120600k3fdd001aua723557338528191@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error (Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
(Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/12/06, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 22:16 schrieb Simon Riggs: > > On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 21:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > > > > How do other database deal with this? Either they nest BEGIN/COMMIT or > > > > they probably throw an error without aborting the transaction, which is > > > > pretty much what we do. Is there a database that actually aborts a > > > > whole transaction just for an extraneous begin? > > > > > > Probably not. The SQL99 spec does say (in describing START TRANSACTION, > > > which is the standard spelling of BEGIN) > > > > > > 1) If a <start transaction statement> statement is executed when > > > an SQL-transaction is currently active, then an exception condition is > > > raised: invalid transaction state - active SQL-transaction. > > > > > > *However*, they are almost certainly expecting that that condition only > > > causes the START command to be ignored; not that it should bounce the > > > whole transaction. So I think the argument that this is required by > > > the spec is a bit off base. > > > > If you interpret the standard that way then the correct behaviour in the > > face of *any* exception condition should be *not* abort the transaction. > > In PostgreSQL, all exception conditions do abort the transaction, so why > > not this one? Why would we special-case this? > > IMO it's ok to raise an exception - if this is configurable for at least one > releasy cycle - giving developers time to fix applications. It's no good > behaviour to change something like this without any (at least time-limited ) > backward compatible option. > if an option to change it is put in place, maybe it will be there forever (with a different default behavior)... i am all in favor of a second begin to throw an exception "already in transaction" or something else (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-12/msg00813.php), but if we do it we should do it the only behavior... i don't think it's good to introduce a new GUC for that things (we will finish with GUCs to turn off every fix) -- regards, Jaime Casanova "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." Richard Cook
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: