On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> EDB has an implementation of this in Advanced Server. A stored >> procedure can issue a COMMIT, which commits the current transaction >> and begins a new one. This might or might not be what people are >> imagining for this feature. If we end up doing something else, one >> thing to consider is the impact on third-party tools like PGPOOL, >> which currently keep track of whether or not a transaction is in >> progress by snooping on the stream of SQL commands. If a procedure >> can be started with no transaction in progress and return with one >> open, or the other way around, that method will break horribly. >> That's not necessarily a reason not to do it, but I suspect we would >> want to add some kind of protocol-level information about the >> transaction state instead so that such tools could continue to work. > > Huh? There's been a transaction state indicator in the protocol since > 7.4 (see ReadyForQuery). It's not our problem if PGPOOL is still using > methods that were appropriate ten years ago.
Hmm. Well, maybe we need some PGPOOL folks to weigh in. Possibly it's just a case of "it ain't broke, so we haven't fixed it". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
