| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: savepoint improvements |
| Date: | 2007-01-22 19:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20070122190849.GO26006@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >one for each INSERT+UPDATE block. This way eiher both of them succeed
> >or fail, within one transaction.
>
> i think so...Martijn said it best: you can 'rollback' to, but you
> can't 'commit' to. The 'commit to' would be the arguably much more
> useful way of disposing of a savepoint. But that should be taken up
> with sql standards committee :(.
You can RELEASE a savepoint though.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2007-01-22 19:16:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-01-22 19:07:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements |