Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:31:52PM +0200, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:59 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:
> > Am Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 10:10 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
> > > You want to make a GUC that makes:
> > >
> > > BEGIN;
> > > BEGIN;
> > >
> > > Leave you with an aborted transaction? That seems like a singularly
> > > useless feature...
> >
> > If a command doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it should be an
> > error. That seems like a throroughly useful feature to me.
> 
> Maybe. I just want to emphasize that it will break existing applications.

If the existing application is trying to start a new transaction from
within an existing one, I'd say it's already broken and we're just
hiding that fact.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461