| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Date: | 2018-12-07 21:02:53 |
| Message-ID: | 22540.1544216573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Well, look at this from this point of view: EnterpriseDB implemented
> this because of customer demand (presumably). Fujitsu also implemented
> this for customers. The pgjdbc driver implemented this for its users.
> Now 2ndQuadrant also implemented this, and not out of the goodness of
> our hearts. Is there any room to say that there is no customer demand
> for this feature?
Yeah, but there is also lots of demand for stability in basic
transactional semantics. I refer you again to the AUTOCOMMIT business;
there were a lot of claims that that wouldn't break too much, and they
were all wrong.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-07 21:09:31 | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-07 20:59:42 | Re: Statement-level rollback |