X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A65E52E2E; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:05:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17940-01; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:05:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.surnet.cl (mx1.surnet.cl [216.155.73.180]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FF552E06; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:05:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) (216.155.73.164) by mx1.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2005 19:05:20 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,127,1122868800"; d="scan'208"; a="268432:sNHT26608512" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (200.85.218.40) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 42B3EF60008C0ED0; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:05:12 -0400 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B3085C2DC2A; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:06:02 -0400 (CLT) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:06:02 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, Junaili Lie , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: in transaction Message-ID: <20050819230602.GM15622@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, Junaili Lie , pgsql-general@postgresql.org References: <8d04ce990508181616c93fbbc@mail.gmail.com> <20050819000218.GS5365@varlena.com> <20050819185519.GY5365@varlena.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050819185519.GY5365@varlena.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.912 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.864, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.376, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.026] X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200508/1060 X-Sequence-Number: 82468 On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:55:19AM -0700, elein wrote: > I'm cross posting to INTERFACES. Please follow up > on INTERFACES and not on general. Cross posting is evil. Well, I'm not on -interfaces, so I'll reply to both :-) I don't worry too much about crossposting, because a) it's commonplace in PostgreSQL lists, and b) majordomo can deliver a single copy of the message if you configure it to do so. > > Some of these I-i-t connections come and go after a while. > > Some stick around for DAYS. > > > > If ANYONE has any brilliant ideas as to the source and > > dare I say correction to this problem, many people, especially > > myself would be very very happy. While this is a purely client-side problem, which is the client issuing a BEGIN right after a COMMIT, we talked about coding around it server-side, back in the time when I was doing nested transactions. It didn't get done though. I think if you push hard enough, somebody (myself?) may do it for 8.2. Of course, this is no solution if the client started a transaction, did some work, and then sat on the connection with the transaction open for days. But this is not a common case and is certainly much more broken, if only because other RDBMS behave more reasonably in the COMMIT-BEGIN scenario. -- Alvaro Herrera () "La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)