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

Re: Nested Transaction TODO list

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested Transaction TODO list
Date: 2004-07-03 16:51:01
Message-ID: 20040703094032.C9348@megazone.bigpanda.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> trigger.c: not at all sure about the model for handling trigger firing
> status.  It looks like a subtrans could fire triggers that were pending
> from an outer xact, which is dubious at best.

Well, SET CONSTRAINTS potentially needs to check the state of any
outstanding constraints whose state changes from deferred to immediate. I
don't think we can say that it sets a constraint to immediate, but doesn't
check outstanding instances because they were from an outer transaction
(unless the constraint state reverted on commit which seems really odd).


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-07-03 17:04:25
Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup
Previous:From: Dennis BjorklundDate: 2004-07-03 16:43:47
Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup

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