| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Manfred Koizar" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
| Date: | 2003-04-01 17:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961F71@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In fact, I had proposed a simpler UNDO capability that revisited tuples
> and set their XID to a fixed aborted XID to clean up aborted
> subtransactions, but most now like the multiple XID solution.
I think for the implicit subtransactions that we will want
(with error codes comming) using a different xid for every command
inside a transaction is not so sexy, no ?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Wampler | 2003-04-01 17:40:24 | Re: PostgreSQL and SOAP, suggestions? |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-04-01 17:32:24 | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |