On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 02:32:44AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >What I'd like to do is start the transaction block before the function > >is called if we are not in a transaction block. This would mean that > >when the function calls BEGIN it won't be the first one -- it will > >actually start a subtransaction and will be able to end it without harm. > >I think this can be done automatically at the SPI level. > > Please tell me there is some sanity in this. If I follow you > correctly, at no point should anyone be able to issue an explicit > begin/end because they are already in an explicit/implicit transaction > by default... How is the user/programmer to know when this is the case? I'm not sure I understand you. Of course you can issue begin/end. What you can't do is issue begin/end inside a function -- you always use subbegin/subcommit in that case. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
