From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Date: | 2004-07-10 21:28:02 |
Message-ID: | 200407101428.02938.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis,
> The non-standard part I was talking about was the savepoints without
> names, and that is what we should support for ever if we introduce them.
I don't have a problem with that idea. Anonymous Savepoints should be easy
to support if we are supporting Named (spec) Savepoints. And the two should
even integrate easily -- a *lot* more easily than Savepoints and Nested Xacts
with a different syntax would. And, it's also a convenient shortcut for the
most common case -- transactions with 1 level of nesting and only a couple of
non-overlapping savepoints.
Of course, if Alvaro can knock out Named Savepoints in a week, then sure,
let's go for it. But I've not heard him saying he can.
However, this does bring up an important issue; if we implement anonymous
savepoints, then should the current implementation accept savepoint names and
just ignore them? If not, it makes porting and coding for the spec much
more difficult; if so, ported applications could develop subtle erroneous
behaviour through wrong rollbacks.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-10 21:36:59 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-07-10 21:21:47 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |