From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Date: | 2004-07-02 04:14:03 |
Message-ID: | 9333.1088741643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for
>> subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole
>> transaction tree.
> But then we're back to the application having to know if its in a
> regular transaction or a sub-transaction aren't we? To me that sounds
> just as bad.
Someone (I forget who at this late hour) gave several cogent arguments
that that's *exactly* what we want. Please see the prior discussion...
Right at the moment I think we have a consensus that we should use
SUBBEGIN/SUBEND or some such keywords for subtransactions. (I do not
say we've agreed to exactly those keywords, only that it's a good idea
to make them different from the outer-level BEGIN/END keywords.)
There was also some talk of offering commands based around the notion of
savepoints, but I'm not sure that we have a consensus on that yet.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | joseph speigle | 2004-07-02 04:20:34 | Re: demande d'aide |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-02 04:08:29 | Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler |