Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions
Date: 2004-07-07 01:30:46
Message-ID: 68bcd79ed96a3c6b53ea4c1eac856f17@biglumber.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Other exceptions I can think of are FETCH and DEALLOCATE. DEALLOCATE is
> particularly fun -- don't most of the arguments for making PREPARE
> transactional also apply to DEALLOCATE? Is it actually feasible to roll
> back a DEALLOCATE?

That's why PREPARE and DEALLOCATE are so perfect the way they are: outside
of transactions. Although I think Tom mentioned that deallocating a
statement that did not exist should raise a notice and not change the
transaction status, which I would totally agree with.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200407062132
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFA61K/vJuQZxSWSsgRAi6oAKDruPbDxfk2uDydOAPoFLjJxyeaHACfaT3V
LncDJ2/eFy8RMNLbmcG2Iwo=
=Tin2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-07-07 02:28:47 Re: bug in DROP TABLESPACE
Previous Message Greg Stark 2004-07-07 01:14:02 Re: Postgresql on SAN