From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Allen Landsidel <all(at)biosys(dot)net>, Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, Chris Ochs <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: best practice for use of functions.. |
Date: | 2004-01-15 09:25:34 |
Message-ID: | 200401150925.35255.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thursday 15 January 2004 03:50, Allen Landsidel wrote:
> Aren't there some caveats to this related to transactions? I've been
> working under the strong (I think I read.. heh) impression that
> transactions cannot be nested, in 7.3 at least..
>
> This would lead me to believe if the 'main' function called another that
> failed and thus issued a rollback, would that not rollback the entire
> meta-transaction, for lack of a better word?
"multi-statement transaction" might be the better word. Now need a better word
for "a bunch of words strung together" ;-)
You're correct, but in this case Chris was doing a batch of inserts in the
same transaction anyway, so that's what he wants.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-01-15 09:32:10 | Re: about postgres odbc on wondows |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-01-15 09:23:21 | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |