From: | tolik(at)icomm(dot)ru (Anatoly K(dot) Lasareff) |
---|---|
To: | "Taral" <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE |
Date: | 1998-11-18 07:49:49 |
Message-ID: | x7n25pa19e.fsf@tolikus.hq.aaanet.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
>>>>> "T" == Taral <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com> writes:
>> > Is the current transaction model adequate or do we need nested
>> > transactions ?
>>
>> Err... I didn't answer your question, did I? The COS Transaction Service
>> implements nested transactions.
T> Aha... finally found the line I was looking for:
T> "An implementation of the Transaction Service is not required to support
T> nested transactions."
To my mind there are _no_ nested transactions in Postgres.
--
Anatoly K. Lasareff Email: tolik(at)icomm(dot)ru
Senior programmer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Massimo Dal Zotto | 1998-11-18 10:42:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrency control questions 6.3.2 vs. 6.4 |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 1998-11-18 07:48:43 | Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Postgres DBA | 1998-11-18 08:48:17 | RE: [GENERAL] problem of upper/lower case in table names |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 1998-11-18 07:48:43 | Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE |