| From: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, James William Pye <flaw(at)rhid(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |
| Date: | 2004-12-01 14:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 41ADDA0B.8050506@mailblocks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck wrote:
> This all would mean that however deeply nested a function call tree,
> it would unwind and rollback everything up to the outermost catch. If
> there is no catch used, no subtransactions are created and the
> unwinding goes all the way up to the statement. If catch is used but
> no spi access performed inside, no subtransaction overhead either.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. No overhead unless you want to. Way to go.
I wish I could do the same in PL/Java.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-01 15:25:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-12-01 14:45:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |