From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Steven D(dot) Arnold" <stevena(at)neosynapse(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: nested transactions |
Date: | 2002-04-22 22:11:30 |
Message-ID: | 27970.1019513490@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> "Steven D. Arnold" <stevena(at)neosynapse(dot)net> wrote:
>> Also, are nexted transactions "on the board," and if so, when/what
>> release are they planned for?
> They're on the TODO list, but AFAIK no one has volunteered to implement
> them yet.
Steven should probably be warned that this is a "don't hold your breath"
kind of thing. AFAICS, nested transactions would require a huge amount
of work by very knowledgeable hackers (for example, looking at nearly
every error-exit condition in the backend, to see if it's going to cause
a problem with continuing the current transaction). The small number
of people who could do it have other priorities.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul M Foster | 2002-04-22 22:31:43 | Re: Returns from ExecTuplesOk() SOLVED |
Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-04-22 22:10:19 | PgAccess patching |