| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Date: | 2000-02-24 16:43:40 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7CF9@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I suspect that most applications don't notice the difference. Most
> > will catch errors and roll back the current transaction, because that's
> > the logical thing to do in most cases.
>
> You are assuming that the app has the intelligence to do so. A psql
> script, for example, lacks that intelligence.
I thought that psql is the only frontend that would not have a problem
with the new behavior, because it now has the feature of "exit on first
error"
and thus rolls back the last open transaction anyway.
> I do agree that this is an area where we need to do some work, but
> it's not going to be a simple or small change. We will need nested-
> transaction support in the backend, and some very careful rethinking
> of the client interfaces to try to avoid breaking existing apps.
Yes, unfortunately.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rolf Grossmann | 2000-02-24 16:44:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-24 16:42:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |