On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only > a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not > start until the first subsequent command is received. [snip] > In a very real sense, the transaction snapshot defines "when the > transaction starts" --- so shouldn't now() agree? > > If we did both of these things, then the negatives of doing an early > BEGIN would pretty much vanish, and we'd not need to complain that these > client libraries are broken. > > Comments?
Both ideas sound like a win to me. Jon ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
