Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Something that would actually be doable for 8.3 would be to downgrade
thi
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 generat
Simon Riggs wrote:
> This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
> inside the server as well and have done with it.
You mean prefork? That would be neat. I don't think it's all that
impossible.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.co
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 transa
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
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As committed, DISCARD ALL does everything but cannot be issued inside a
> > transaction block.
>
> > I'd like to propose that DISCARD ALL also issue a ROLLBACK command if it
> > is issued from within a
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As committed, DISCARD ALL does everything but cannot be issued inside a
> transaction block.
> I'd like to propose that DISCARD ALL also issue a ROLLBACK command if it
> is issued from within a transaction block.
That was *intentional* to prevent mistakes
