From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Vilain <sam(at)vilain(dot)net> |
Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT |
Date: | 2010-05-26 22:58:06 |
Message-ID: | 4BFDA77E.6030302@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/05/10 02:00, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On May 25, 2010, at 12:18 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become accessible, as the doc says, but rolling back to a savepoint does not implicitly release it. You'll have to use RELEASE SAVEPOINT for that.
>>
>> Ah, now I get it. Thanks.
>>
>> Would changing "Releasing the newer savepoint will cause ... " to "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint" or maybe even "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint with RELEASE SAVEPOINT will cause ..." make things clearer?
>
> Yes, probably - your misreading matches my misreading of it :-)
+1.
> There is another way you can get there - releasing to a savepoint before
> the re-used savepoint name will also release the savepoints after it.
>
> ie
>
> savepoint foo;
> savepoint bar;
> savepoint foo;
> release to savepoint bar;
> release to savepoint foo;
>
> After the first release, the second 'foo' savepoint is gone. I think
> this is a key advantage in saving the old savepoints.
Yep. Do we need to mention that in that notice? I don't think so, it
would become really verbose. Florian's wording above seems fine.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-05-26 23:04:49 | Re: primary/secondary/master/slave/standby |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-26 22:52:33 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |