From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Date: | 2003-03-20 03:21:10 |
Message-ID: | 3E7933A6.3D22E51F@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > > > Sorry I have a basic question.
> > > > Was there any consensus we would introduce nested transactions
> > > > (or savepoints) in the way currently discussed ?
> > >
> > > I think we are a long way from saying we can or will actually do it.
> > > Error handling and resource management (eg locks) are a couple of other
> > > huge cans of worms that have yet to be opened. But certainly a solid
> > > design for the transaction logging and tuple validity checking is a
> > > necessary step.
> >
> > Is the way to undo data rejected already ?
>
> You mean abort subtransactions? Each subtransaction gets its own
> transaction id, so we just mark that as aborted --- there is no undo of
> tuples, though I had originally suggested that approach years ago.
Vadim planned to implement the savepoints functionality
using UNDO mechanism. AFAIR it was never denied explicitly.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-20 03:26:14 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-20 03:14:21 | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |