=?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 warn you about this, this may lead to not so easy
> to spot bugs.
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 be the intended behavior, but that
sure seems a whole lot less probable than it being user error.
And you could always throw BEGIN/COMMIT into the command if that
really was what you wanted.
Objections anyone?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
