"Robert Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's a good point. We throw error for DECLARE CURSOR outside a
>> transaction block, since it's obviously a mistake. I wonder whether
>> we shouldn't equally throw error for LOCK outside a transaction block.
>>
>> Objections anyone?
> No, I've been
> That's a good point. We throw error for DECLARE CURSOR outside a
> transaction block, since it's obviously a mistake. I wonder whether
> we shouldn't equally throw error for LOCK outside a transaction block.
>
> I can sort of imagine some corner cases where
> lock-and-immediately-release would
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sebastian_B=F6hm?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 03.11.2008 um 12:06 schrieb Richard Huxton:
>> It's not possible to have a LOCK statement outside of a
>> transaction. It's just not meaningful to have a transaction that only
>> has a LOCK statement in it.
> as postgres does not w
