Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 200311100310.hAA3Al428467@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
|
| Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I object to adding unnecessary complications like that. > > > Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics? The > > changes to the code were the addition of only one line. The rest of the > > patch was docs. > > My initial reaction was the same as Peter's, but after seeing the small > size of the patch I reconsidered. It seems to make sense that BEGIN > should be an exact synonym for START TRANSACTION. Let me give you my logic on this --- if people think of BEGIN and START TRANSACTION as the same, and they do \h begin, they aren't going to see the read only and isolation options for START TRANSACTION, and I doubt they are going to think to look there because they think they are the same. That's why I think it is good to add those clauses to BEGIN WORK/TRANSACTION. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: