From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions |
Date: | 2004-06-17 02:03:15 |
Message-ID: | 200406170203.i5H23F801739@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > And consider this case:
> >
> > BEGIN;
> > ...
> > SAVEPOINT x;
> > SELECT func_call();
> > SELECT func_call();
> > COMMIT;
> >
> > Now if func_call has a savepoint, it is really nested because it can't
> > know whether the savepoint X will be used to roll back, so its status is
> > dependent on the status of X. Now, if we used savepoints in func_call,
> > what happens in the second function call when we define a savepoint with
> > the same name? I assume we overwrite the original, but using nested
> > transaction syntax seems much clearer.
>
> It also seems in this example that func_call() probably shouldn't have
> permission to rollback to savepoint x? Otherwise it would get...weird.
Yes, weird.
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-17 02:04:20 | Re: Nested transactions |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-17 02:01:32 | Re: Nested transactions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-17 02:04:20 | Re: Nested transactions |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-17 02:01:32 | Re: Nested transactions |