Re: Persistent connections and transactions

On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:01:14AM +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: [ . . . ] > i ran across this transaction problem vs. persistent conn in pgsql some time ago. > > I found two workaround methods: > - don't use persistent conn's :-) or; > - start every conn with the usual pg_pconnect and then query a rollback to the server: > $query="ROLLBACK work;" > > (this will kill any supposed transaction in ABORT STATE that some child had left). > > postgres don't support nested transactions (yet), but when it does maybe you should add > multiple "ROLLBACK WORK;" queries :-) Ah. Very cool. What I _still_ don't quite understand, though, is _how_ exactly this situation could come about. And what the worst case would be. What if you don't kill the transaction in ABORT STATE? Ta, Frank