Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> (Someone might still complain that we cause a PG_TRY in BEGIN >> TRANSACTION etc. Not sure if this is something we should worry about. >> Robert did complain about this previously.) > > I think it would be difficult and probably dangerous to have PG_TRY > for only some utility commands, so not much to be done about that. > The main thing is to not invoke event trigger code for BEGIN/ABORT/SET.
What about splitting the big switch statement into two of them? The first one for transaction control statements, and then the other bigger one. Maybe we could even rework the code (either in some other switch statements or just by physical lines proximity) so that TCL, DCL, DDL, etc are each in easy to spot blocks, which is more or less true as of today, but not exactly so IIRC. Then we don't need new support code, and we can even continue using the current macro. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
