From: | Andreas <maps(dot)on(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | will I need nested transactions ? |
Date: | 2004-05-17 14:56:18 |
Message-ID: | 40A8D292.7040705@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
will I need "nested transactions" which - as I read - aren't
implemented, yet ?
I have some objects that rely on each other.
Each has a status like proposal, working, canceled.
table-A <--- table-B <--- table-C <--- table-D
Those are (1, OO) relationships,
A status change above gets cascaded down but not upwards.
If I try to cancel a table-A-record every "lower" record in B, C, D
should be canceled, too, when the transaction is committed.
Since it is possible, that I cancel e.g. a table B object only its
children should get updated but not table-A.
I thought somthing along this to cancel a type B object:
BEGIN
BEGIN
BEGIN
UPDATE table-D
END
if no error UPDATE table-C
END
if no error UPDATE table-B
END
Does this make sense and will it provide the necesary protection ?
BTW the client is Access 2000 via ODBC talking to an PostgreSQL 7.4.2 on
Linux.
Regards
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Siegal | 2004-05-17 15:29:10 | Run external program upon change |
Previous Message | Milos Prudek | 2004-05-17 14:24:48 | Re: serial autoincrement and related table |