Re: Nested transaction proposal - take N (N > 2)

>> a c
>> 0 0 transaction in progress, the owning backend knows whether
>> it is a main- or a sub-transaction, other backends don't care
>> 1 0 aborted, nobody cares whether main- or sub-transaction
>> 0 1 committed main-transaction or - with shortcut 2 - a sub-
>> transaction that's known committed to all active transactions
>> 1 1 committed sub-transaction, have to look for parent in
>> pg_subtrans
>
>
> This conflicts with my two-phase commit patch. I'm using the fourth state
> to mark transactions that have been prepared (1st. phase) but not yet
> committed.
>
> I think I can work around it in my code, so that you can have the fourth
> state. I have to keep a list of prepared transactions in memory anyway, I
> can use that instead.

He who commits first, wins :P

Chris