| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "DT *EXTERN*" <kurt023(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why there are TRANS_START and TRANS_INPROGRESS |
| Date: | 2013-10-22 11:22:47 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C5055A@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
DT wrote:
> I'm reading code of xact.c, and I found the only difference between TRANS_START
> and TRANS_INPROGRESS is when transaction aborts in TRANS_START status we set
> status to TRANS_INPROGRESS so AbortTransaction() will not report WARNING.
> So I wonder to know the reason why we distinguish them?
After reading into it it seems to me that TRANS_START means
"transaction is starting" and TRANS_INPROGRESS means
"transaction successfully started". See StartTransaction()
and StartSubTransaction().
A difference is made in IsTransactionState() where
TRANS_START transactions are not reported as being in a
transaction.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert James | 2013-10-22 13:06:47 | Re: Count of records in a row |
| Previous Message | DT | 2013-10-22 10:44:31 | Why there are TRANS_START and TRANS_INPROGRESS |