Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to support transactions with BLOBs for current CVS

From: Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to support transactions with BLOBs for current CVS
Date: 2001-01-21 07:09:46
Message-ID: 01012113094601.00620@dyp.perchine.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> > First of all it will not break lo_creat, lo_unlink for sure.
>
> lo_creat depends on inv_create followed by inv_close; your patch
> proposed to disable both of those outside transaction blocks.
> lo_unlink depends on inv_drop, which ditto.  Your patch therefore
> restricts lo_creat and lo_unlink to be done inside transaction blocks,
> which is a new and completely unnecessary restriction that will
> doubtless break many existing applications.

OK.As I already said we can remove checks from inv_create/inv_drop. They are 
not needed there.

> > But I do not see any reasons why we not put lo_import, and lo_export in
> > TX. At least this will prevent other backends from reading partially
> > imported BLOBs...
>
> lo_import and lo_export always execute in a transaction, just like any
> other backend operation.  There is no need to force them to be done in
> a transaction block.  If you're not clear about this, perhaps you need
> to review the difference between transactions and transaction blocks.

Hmmm... Where can I read about it? At least which source/header?

-- 
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine

----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Cedar CoxDate: 2001-01-21 10:47:09
Subject: ODBC gives pq_recvbuf: unexpected EOF on client connection
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-21 07:08:07
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to support transactions with BLOBs for current CVS

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-01-21 10:56:19
Subject: Re: Fix for defaults in createuser
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-21 07:08:07
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to support transactions with BLOBs for current CVS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group