| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review |
| Date: | 2004-05-28 15:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20040529.002518.112627029.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 04:51:07PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > 2) certain behavior was different from what I expected (please correct me
> > if my expectation is wrong).
>
> Yes, the expected behavior is different: if an aborted subtransaction is
> closed with a COMMIT or END command, the parent transaction is aborted
> too. This is to inhibit an application which blindly expects the
> subtransaction to succeed to reach an invalid state. If you want to
> return to non-aborted state, end the subtransaction with ROLLBACK
> instead.
Oh, I got it. Thanks.
> But Bob Henkel and you are right: there needo to be documentation.
> Initially I figured I could do that later because there is no new
> syntax, but it is obviously needed to explain all sorts of assumptions
> and behavior like this.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-05-28 15:27:35 | Re: Win32, PITR, nested transactions, tablespaces |
| Previous Message | James Robinson | 2004-05-28 15:15:28 | Re: pg_dump --comment? |