On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 12:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 16:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > > > So I think this is dead code. The attached patch removes it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, it is dead code; it's a leftover from Vadim's old plan to implement
> > > Oracle-style UNDO. AFAIK none of the current crop of hackers wants to
> > > proceed in that direction, so we may as well remove the last traces.
> > Agreed.
> > We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
> > WIPs.
> Sorry, what's your WIP? Explain why nobody wants to implement UNDO? Or
> implement UNDO? Or why at some point somebody wanted to implement UNDO?
Nearly: explain why UNDO is not required, and need not be implemented.
Anyway, its a WIP, but not unfortunately a high one, right now.
> Now I remember that in the WAL docs there is a paragraph or two
> mentioning that in a future project we want to implement UNDO ... maybe
> it's a good idea to rip that off.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2005-04-04 19:56:28|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-04-04 19:02:47|
|Subject: Re: Notes on lock table spilling|