I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
(Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:54:00 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
END/ABORT
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
> (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)
> 

We have to keep them in there for compatibility with older code.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:37:55 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
   > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
   > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
   > (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)

   We have to keep them in there for compatibility with older code.

But documentation could mark them as deprecated so new users will use
the standard commands.

Cheers,
Brook

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:31:39 -0700 (MST)
Brook Milligan <brook@biology.nmsu.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
>    > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
>    > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
>    > (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)
> 
>    We have to keep them in there for compatibility with older code.
> 
> But documentation could mark them as deprecated so new users will use
> the standard commands.

Yes, I think that is done, but am not positive.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:03:12 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?

Exactly what will this accomplish, other than breaking a lot of existing
applications?  (Including all of mine, which no doubt biases my thinking.)

> (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)

If the words must remain reserved, then there's even less value in
removing the statements.

I'm agin it...

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:18:32 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT 
On 2000-01-28, Tom Lane mentioned:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
> 
> Exactly what will this accomplish, other than breaking a lot of existing
> applications?  (Including all of mine, which no doubt biases my thinking.)

Okay, I was just wondering. But I'm going to change all the notices and
docs to use commit and rollback instead.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:16:35 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT 
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>>> I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
>>>> redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
>> 
>> Exactly what will this accomplish, other than breaking a lot of existing
>> applications?  (Including all of mine, which no doubt biases my thinking.)

> Okay, I was just wondering. But I'm going to change all the notices and
> docs to use commit and rollback instead.

OK, that seems fair enough.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:59:21 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT 
On 2000-01-28, Bruce Momjian mentioned:

> [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
> > (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)
> > 
> 
> We have to keep them in there for compatibility with older code.
> 

Okay, maybe yank was the wrong word. But I changed the command tags to
commit/rollback and the notices to something friendlier.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:59:00 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> On 2000-01-28, Tom Lane mentioned:
> 
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> > > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
> > 
> > Exactly what will this accomplish, other than breaking a lot of existing
> > applications?  (Including all of mine, which no doubt biases my thinking.)
> 
> Okay, I was just wondering. But I'm going to change all the notices and
> docs to use commit and rollback instead.

Great.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:24:19 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > I'd like to yank the END/ABORT commands, since they're non-standard and
> > redundant (COMMIT/ROLLBACK). Anyone who could not bear to see them go?
> > (Of course END would stay as a reserved word.)
> >
>
> We have to keep them in there for compatibility with older code.

    How long?

    IIRC,  CURRENT  has been replaced by OLD after I've fixed the
    rewriter.  Both have been there between 6.4 and 6.5. With 6.5
    CURRENT was gone.

    Of  course,  removing  END/ABORT will touch many applications
    using transactions, but I would vote  for  it  anyway,  since
    it's standard.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:41:51 +0100 (CET)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
At 09:41 AM 1/31/00 +0100, Jan Wieck wrote:

>    Of  course,  removing  END/ABORT will touch many applications
>    using transactions, but I would vote  for  it  anyway,  since
>    it's standard.

Does it make all that much sense to worry about the actual word
used when the need to use "begin" is non-standard to begin with?

Of course, removing that would REALLY impact current applications...



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:45:58 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT


Don Baccus wrote:

> At 09:41 AM 1/31/00 +0100, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> >    Of  course,  removing  END/ABORT will touch many applications
> >    using transactions, but I would vote  for  it  anyway,  since
> >    it's standard.
>
> Does it make all that much sense to worry about the actual word
> used when the need to use "begin" is non-standard to begin with?

   There is no explicit "BEGIN WORK" on SQL92, transaction initiation
   is always implicit and it terminates either with a COMMIT or a
ROLLBACK
   statement.

>
>
> Of course, removing that would REALLY impact current applications...
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
>   Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
>   Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
>   http://donb.photo.net.
>
> ************

--
Jose' Soares
Bologna, Italy                     Jose@sferacarta.com



Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:19:05 +0100
Jose Soares <jose@sferacarta.com>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT
At 02:19 PM 2/1/00 +0100, Jose Soares wrote:
>
>
>Don Baccus wrote:

>> Does it make all that much sense to worry about the actual word
>> used when the need to use "begin" is non-standard to begin with?
>
>   There is no explicit "BEGIN WORK" on SQL92, transaction initiation
>   is always implicit and it terminates either with a COMMIT or a
>ROLLBACK
>   statement.

That was my point, of course...



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Tue, 01 Feb 2000 08:03:44 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] END/ABORT