On 12-04-2021 14:07, Nikita Popov wrote: > I believe this behavior is correct, but I could see an argument made in > favor of always allowing commit() calls (but not rollBack() calls) even if > there is no active transaction. That would change the meaning of commit() > from "commit an active transaction" towards "commit if an active > transaction exists". > > Any opinions on that? >
I think it is really nice that commit() throws for inactive transactions. Code paths that mess up your transactions will not go unnoticed that easily. My preference would be to have a separate commit method or a method parameter to explicitly allow committing without an active transaction. Regards, Dik Takken -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
