| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>, Jon Swinth <jswinth(at)atomicpc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two features left |
| Date: | 2002-11-27 20:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200211272044.gARKiOF27873@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Right. I hadn't planned on ABORT ALL, but it could be done to abort the
> > entire transaction. Is there any standard on that?
>
> I would be inclined to argue against any such thing; if I'm trying to
> confine the effects of an error by doing a subtransaction BEGIN, I don't
> think I *want* to allow something inside the subtransaction to abort my
> outer transaction ...
Without it, you are required to keep track of your transaction nesting
levels in the application. I don't see a subtransaction aborting the
outer transaction as a problem because once you do ABORT ALL, you are
out of the outer transaction --- at least that's how I assumed it would
work.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Swinth | 2002-11-27 20:46:08 | Re: Two features left |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-27 20:42:24 | Re: Two features left |