| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | kientzle(at)acm(dot)org |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Failed Statements within Transactions |
| Date: | 2001-01-03 00:21:14 |
| Message-ID: | 200101030021.TAA12493@jupiter.jw.home |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tim Kientzle wrote:
> [...]
>
> Basically, the PostgreSQL developers have decided
> that any integrity violation is a serious error;
> therefore, PostgreSQL does not really permit
> tentative INSERTs within transactions. This violates
> SQL conventions that are pretty well-established
> in some circles, needlessly complicates
> applications that use complex transactions
> and introduces a fairly minor performance issue.
We haven't, it's just that our code inherited this feature by
the way, ROLLBACK is implemented - and if you'd know only a
little about the storage management in PostgreSQL, you'd
never tell it the way you did. With the current
implementation of tuple visibility there is only all-or-
nothing. Savepoints will get us out of there, but not before
7.2 or 7.3.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dominic J. Eidson | 2001-01-03 00:39:17 | Re: RE: Re: MySQL and PostgreSQL speed compare |
| Previous Message | Eric Mueller | 2001-01-03 00:20:53 | RE: RE: Re: MySQL and PostgreSQL speed compare |