On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:45:22 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
> >> COMMIT were just some random utility com
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
>> COMMIT were just some random utility command?
> It's the same thing, because CommitTransactionCommand acts identically
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
> >> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do th
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
>> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
>> it worthwhile.
> Patch attached. It passes
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
> it worthwhile.
Patch attached. It passes the regression tests. It shouldn't have
secondar
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
>> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> test=> begin;
>>> BEGIN
>>> test=> commit;
>>> COMMIT
>>> test=> commit;
>>> WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
>>> ROLLBACK
>>
>> It's still a misleading mes
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > test=> begin;
> > > BEGIN
> > > test=> commit;
> > > COMMIT
> > > test=> commit;
> > > WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
> > > ROLLBACK
> > >
> > > Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoe
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > test=> begin;
> > BEGIN
> > test=> commit;
> > COMMIT
> > test=> commit;
> > WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
> > ROLLBACK
> >
> > Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?
>
> Because the transaction was n
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:42:19 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Barwick wrote:
>
>
> > just wondering:
> >
> > test=> select version();
> > version
> > ---
Ian Barwick wrote:
> just wondering:
>
> test=> select version();
> version
> --
> PostgreSQL 8.0.0beta4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> 3.3.3 (SuSE L
just wondering:
test=> select version();
version
--
PostgreSQL 8.0.0beta4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
3.3.3 (SuSE Linux)
(1 row)
test=> begin;
BEGI
11 matches
Mail list logo