Re: Re: Failed Statements within Transactions

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 #

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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