| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Fortunov <psycopg-list(at)danielfortunov(dot)com>, psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested transactions support for code composability |
| Date: | 2017-01-22 18:08:38 |
| Message-ID: | 2254562A-20C1-4A4E-86E2-2E7CB6FC3BAD@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
> On Jan 22, 2017, at 09:57, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have not used nested transaction outside of Django's implementation of @xact() eg @atomic(). Still a little fooling around with psycopg2 code led to this:
It would be pretty straight-forward (although I haven't done it) to do a non-Django version of xact(); you'd probably just pass the connection object in as a parameter to the decorator.
I've noticed that in real life the savepoint functionality is not used all that much, but it does provide a nice consistency to the implied semantics of the decorator, and it's great when you actually do need it.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
xof(at)thebuild(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan Rogers | 2017-01-23 16:45:41 | Re: Nested transactions support for code composability |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-01-22 17:57:23 | Re: Nested transactions support for code composability |