Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 22:23 schrieb Mark Dilger: > 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? ... > > 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
I would expect after a COMMIT without an error, that my transaction is committed. When the system accidently issued a second BEGIN, this would not be the case. And what about BEGIN; BEGIN; ROLLBACK; COMMIT; then? Should the rollback be ignored also? I'd vote for breaking broken applications and leave the database-administrator reactivate this currently broken behavior of postgresql via GUC. Tommi ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match