Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:03 -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 15:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Somebody who wants the
above behavior can send "ROLLBACK; DISCARD ALL".
...which generates an ERROR if no transaction is in progress and fills
the log needlessly.
Well, it's a WARNING, but your point is taken. Can't a clueful interface
just check what the transaction status of the connection is, rather than
unconditionally issuing a ROLLBACK?
I think it can, but can't a clueful server do this and avoid the problem
of non-clueful interfaces?
This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
inside the server as well and have done with it.
Could we maybe have some flavor of ROLLBACK that doesn't issue a warning
if no transaction is in progress? There is precedent for this sort of
facility - DROP ... IF EXISTS.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
