From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jon Swinth <jswinth(at)atomicpc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Two features left |
Date: | 2002-11-27 20:55:08 |
Message-ID: | 200211272055.gARKt8V29137@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
The upper transaction really doesn't know of the lower sub-transaction's
abort, unless it looks at the result returned by the subtransaction
commit, just as current code checks the commit of a non-subtransaction.
Is that OK?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> My question again is:
>
> How can the upper transaction be aware of an aborted lower transaction?
>
> JLL
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Right. I hadn't planned on ABORT ALL, but it could be done to abort the
> > > entire transaction. Is there any standard on that?
> >
> > I would be inclined to argue against any such thing; if I'm trying to
> > confine the effects of an error by doing a subtransaction BEGIN, I don't
> > think I *want* to allow something inside the subtransaction to abort my
> > outer transaction ...
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-27 20:58:19 | Re: One SQL to access two databases. |
Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-11-27 20:50:07 | Re: Two features left |