X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D937ED1C7F0 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:28:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03184-09 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:27:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from varlena.com (adsl-63-207-14-144.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.207.14.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAD7D1C511 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:28:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: by varlena.com (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.3 (i386), from userid 500) id CDD6A394B8; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:23:57 -0700 From: elein To: Joe Conway Cc: elein , Tom Lane , "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" Subject: Re: best way to determine start of new statement within a function? (resend) Message-ID: <20030728102357.G16834@cookie> References: <3F206EB3.9010904@joeconway.com> <5630.1059108791@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030725102408.C3643@cookie> <3F255642.3040306@joeconway.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F255642.3040306@joeconway.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200307/1049 X-Sequence-Number: 41654 I was starting to wonder if my message got there. Tom had asked for a clear definition of "what is a statement" hence the wide description. If I wrote this up more formally where would I put it so we could talk about it when the various issues come up? Maybe a friend-of-the-court unapproved functional spec in the dev docs? Noting, of course, that this is functional not implementation specifications. I'm surprised these issues did not come up with who ever is working on nested transactions since that is in the same realm. elein On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:58:42AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > elein wrote: > >Do you want me to try to write this up into > >more formal definitions? > > > > I think it would be a useful starting point for future discussions, but > it goes way beyond what I was looking for at the moment. > > Joe > >