X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B81D8A41; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:36:44 -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 08340-10; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:36:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3B3D8A09; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:36:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from p50897329.dip.t-dialin.net [80.137.115.41] (helo=feivel) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML2ov-1EEnY63hUG-0003l6; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:36:38 +0200 Received: by feivel (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3773F4AD7D; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:36:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:36:34 +0200 From: Michael Meskes To: Michael Fuhr Cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-interfaces , PostgreSQL-patches Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG ignores SAVEPOINT if first statement of a transaction Message-ID: <20050912123634.GB21008@1> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Fuhr , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-interfaces , PostgreSQL-patches References: <20050803153223.GA17861@winnie.fuhr.org> <200508130222.j7D2MWh29185@candle.pha.pa.us> <20050813150145.GA87926@winnie.fuhr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050813150145.GA87926@winnie.fuhr.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:da5cff6069dd6897c77170232368d0ba X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.047 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/12 X-Sequence-Number: 5735 On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 09:01:45AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > If no statements have been executed in this transaction then committed > is true, so ECPGtrans() ignores the current statement. It looks > like the code should make an extra consideration for SAVEPOINT in > case it's the first statement. I rearranged the whole code as it seemed to have more holes. This code really was old. :-) So could you please check with the lates CVS, either HEAD or 8.0? > I'm also wondering if the check for a NULL return value from PQexec() > is sufficient. Shouldn't it also check for a non-NULL result that's > anything other than PGRES_COMMAND_OK? Yes, it should. I changed this as well. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!