| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-10 07:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | 40EF9C02.1030400@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>BEGIN
>>> display one screen to user - book the flight
>>> INSERT INTO ...
>>> INSERT INTO ...
>>> UPDATE ...
>>> SAVEPOINT
>>> display another related screen - book the hotel
>>> INSERT INTO
>>> DELETE
>>> UPDATE
>>> UPDATE
>>> SAVEPOINT
>>> offer confirmation screen
>>>COMMIT (or ROLLBACK)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No, SAVEPOINT is not some kind of intermediate commit, but a point where
>>a rollback can rollback to.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm....I'm not sure what you mean by "No". The SAVEPOINT is somewhere
>you can ROLLBACK to, yes - exactly what I'm saying.
>
>I've not introduced any concept of "intermediate commit"...
>
>Do you agree that my example is valid Oracle SQL?
>
>
If you name that SAVEPOINT statements, yes. But the ordering of
statements makes the second savepoint useless, because it's after all
datamodifying statements; the first three are not covered by a savepoint
at all, only the toplevel xaction. That's probably not what you wanted.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-10 07:50:32 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-07-10 07:10:15 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |