From: | hernan gonzalez <hgonzalez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | savepoints with the same name |
Date: | 2010-04-30 16:02:24 |
Message-ID: | y2r48692c2d1004300902kc98fe365x97910a4c53a92391@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I was thinking thinking about the issue asked here, about an error in
a query causing the whole transaction to abort,
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2741919/can-i-ask-postgresql-to-ignore-errors-within-a-transaction/2745677
which has already bothered so many postgresql users and has been
discussed before (it's certainly not a bug, I know).
I wonder if the suggestion I ("leonbloy") gave, of adding a SAVEPOINT
after each insert (when doing interactive work)
is reasonable.
In particular, after reading this message
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-07/msg00636.php
"If you savepoint every single insert, you'll wind up begin much
much slower..."
Does that also apply when I issue a SAVEPOINT with the same name? Does
the new savepoint release the previous and create a new
one, or does it "move" the previous? Or it's just that a new one is
created and the name "shadows" the previous, so that there are still N
active savepoints in the transaction, taking up memory/resources ?
Hernán J. González
http://hjg.com.ar/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-04-30 16:07:15 | Re: Inheritance efficiency |
Previous Message | akp geek | 2010-04-30 16:00:32 | Function to Table reference |