Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
>> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
>> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
>> plus in subtransaction/in failed subtransaction.
> This will break the existing JDBC driver in nonobvious ways: the current
> code silently ignores unhandled transaction states in ReadyForQuery,
Drat. Scratch that plan then. (Still, silently ignoring unrecognized
states probably wasn't a good idea for the JDBC code...)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
