| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Date: | 2009-10-13 17:10:05 |
| Message-ID: | 9416.1255453805@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There aren't any. You can *not* put a try/catch around arbitrary code
>> without a subtransaction. Don't even think about it.
>>
> Well then why the tests provided with the patch are working?
Because they carefully exercise only a tiny fraction of the system.
The key word in my sentence above is "arbitrary". You don't know what
a datatype input function might try to do, let alone triggers or other
functions that COPY might have to invoke. They might do things that
need to be cleaned up after, and subtransaction rollback is the only
mechanism we have for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-13 17:11:57 | Re: Client application name |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-13 16:55:35 | Re: Client application name |