Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:41:46AM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote: > >>>>Could we make BEGIN fail when we already are in a transaction? >>> >>>We could, but it'd probably break about as many apps as it fixed. >>>I wonder whether php shouldn't be complaining about this, instead >>>--- doesn't php have its own ideas about controlling where the >>>transaction commit points are? >> >>In fact it would break many application, so it should be at least >>controllable >>by a setting or GUC. > > > You want to make a GUC that makes: > > BEGIN; > BEGIN; > > Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly > useless feature... > > Have a nice day,
Or if you really want to screw things up, you could require COMMIT; COMMIT; to finish off the transaction started by BEGIN; BEGIN; We could just silently keep the transaction alive after the first COMMIT; ;) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
