| From: | Timur Irmatov <itvthor(at)sdf(dot)lonestar(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two features left |
| Date: | 2002-11-28 10:27:55 |
| Message-ID: | 6119082999.20021128152755@sdf.lonestar.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom!
Thursday, November 28, 2002, 12:08:39 PM, you wrote:
TL> "Timur V. Irmatov" <itvthor(at)sdf(dot)lonestar(dot)org> writes:
>> It is very simple to implement (i think) it other way - just do not
>> force transaction to enter abort state afer exception.
TL> Better study the backend's error handling before you say that.
OK, I'M WRONG, SORRY...
but I still insist that using nested transaction to allow transactions
to continue after SQL exceptions is not a good idea..
it is like trying to go long round way instead of straight one.
Am I alone here with such a thought? Are all happy about this way of
solving a problem (or adding a feature) ??
Sincerely yours,
Timur.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Prachi Jain | 2002-11-28 10:46:51 | German character set |
| Previous Message | Prachi Jain | 2002-11-28 10:24:37 | Collate in Postgres |