| From: | Jon Swinth <jswinth(at)atomicpc(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two features left |
| Date: | 2002-11-27 20:17:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200211271217.24081.jswinth@atomicpc.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I'm not sure what abort would have to do with what I am talking about. The
point is that a SQL exception should not require rollback on the previous SQL
calls in the same transaction.
On Wednesday 27 November 2002 11:58 am, Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> Bruce,
>
>
> I assume one will be able to ABORT the current transaction without
> aborting the higher transaction and ABORT ALL to abort all if needed.
>
>
> What syntax will be available to the upper transaction to detect a lower
> ABORT?
> While there be something à la Java ( try catch)?
>
>
> JLL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Al Bean | 2002-11-27 20:17:51 | Re: versions |
| Previous Message | Jon Swinth | 2002-11-27 20:14:55 | Re: Two features left |