Re: savepoint improvements

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: savepoint improvements
Date: 2007-01-22 15:02:35
Message-ID: 1169478155.3776.304.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 09:25 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 1/21/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > On 1/21/07, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> - continue on error i.e. COMMIT can/might succeed - though there are
> > >> still cases where it cannot, such as a serializable exception.
> >
> > > and what should be the behaviour of that? the same as rollback?
> >
> > The only conceivable implementation is an implicit savepoint issued
> > before each statement.
>
> I'm not sure I agree here...before the NT implementation was changed
> over to savepoint syntax it was perfectly possible to recover from
> errors inside a transaction...and is still possible in plpgsql
> functions only. What I'm asking for is to reopen this behavior
> somehow...in the production environments I've worked in application
> update and maintenance relied heavily on scripting, and lack of this
> functionality forces me to wrap the script launch with C code to work
> around limitations of the savepoint system.

Could you post an example, just so we're all clear what the problems
are? I thought I understood what you are requesting; I may not.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-22 15:30:09 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum Improvements
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-01-22 14:51:47 Piggybacking vacuum I/O