From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions |
Date: | 2004-06-17 02:01:32 |
Message-ID: | 40D0FB7C.8030309@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-patches |
> And consider this case:
>
> BEGIN;
> ...
> SAVEPOINT x;
> SELECT func_call();
> SELECT func_call();
> COMMIT;
>
> Now if func_call has a savepoint, it is really nested because it can't
> know whether the savepoint X will be used to roll back, so its status is
> dependent on the status of X. Now, if we used savepoints in func_call,
> what happens in the second function call when we define a savepoint with
> the same name? I assume we overwrite the original, but using nested
> transaction syntax seems much clearer.
It also seems in this example that func_call() probably shouldn't have
permission to rollback to savepoint x? Otherwise it would get...weird.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-17 02:03:15 | Re: Nested transactions |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-17 02:01:17 | Re: Nested transactions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-17 02:03:15 | Re: Nested transactions |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-17 02:01:17 | Re: Nested transactions |