Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 02:32:44AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > >What I'd like to do is start the transaction block before the function
> > >is called if we are not in a transaction block. This would mean that
> > >when the function calls BEGIN it won't be the first one -- it will
> > >actually start a subtransaction and will be able to end it without harm.
> > >I think this can be done automatically at the SPI level.
> >
> > Please tell me there is some sanity in this. If I follow you
> > correctly, at no point should anyone be able to issue an explicit
> > begin/end because they are already in an explicit/implicit transaction
> > by default... How is the user/programmer to know when this is the case?
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. Of course you can issue begin/end. What
> you can't do is issue begin/end inside a function -- you always use
> subbegin/subcommit in that case.

And if you use SUBBEGIN/SUBCOMMIT in a function that isn't already call
inside from an explicit transaction, it will work because the call
itself is its own implicit transaction, right?

--
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