From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Peterson <rpeterso(at)mtholyoke(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: transactions in multiple action rules |
Date: | 2004-12-21 06:42:07 |
Message-ID: | 3842.1103611327@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ron Peterson <rpeterso(at)mtholyoke(dot)edu> writes:
> Do the multiple actions within a multiple action rule implicitly reside
> within a transaction?
Yes. In the current code it is actually not possible for a single SQL
command issued by the client to give rise to more than one transaction.
(This might change if we invent some kind of stored-procedure engine, but
rules certainly can't do it.)
> (I want to be sure that I can count on 'currval' returning the sequence
> value returned by the previous action's 'nextval',
As Bruno pointed out, that really has nothing to do with how many
transactions are involved. The per-session state that currval uses will
sit quietly for as long as you need.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Russ Brown | 2004-12-21 07:52:31 | Re: RES: NewsForge Poll: Favorite open source database? |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-12-21 05:28:34 | Re: transactions in multiple action rules |