From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Question about savepoint level? |
Date: | 2022-10-24 09:56:21 |
Message-ID: | 20221024095621.cmj57iypalhm5i2t@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-24, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 3:00 PM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I try to remove the savepointLevel, and it seems harmless. Any thoughts?
>
> ISTM the savepointLevel always remains the same as what is in
> TopTransactionStateData after looking at the codes. Now I also get
> confused. Maybe what we want is nestingLevel?
This has already been discussed:
https://postgr.es/m/1317297307-sup-7945@alvh.no-ip.org
Now that we have transaction-controlling procedures, I think the next
step is to add the SQL-standard feature that allows savepoint level
control for them, which would make the savepointLevel no longer dead
code.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"You're _really_ hosed if the person doing the hiring doesn't understand
relational systems: you end up with a whole raft of programmers, none of
whom has had a Date with the clue stick." (Andrew Sullivan)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-10-24 09:56:40 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-10-24 09:54:28 | pg_dump: Refactor code that constructs ALTER ... OWNER TO commands |