| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-10 19:23:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20040710192312.GD4849@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 08:03:36PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 16:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So this is another reason why we should use COMMIT to close a nested
> > transaction: it may refer to a transaction that is already closed
> > because the user got confused.
Sorry! I wanted to say that we SHOULDN'T use "commit" to close a nested
transaction. Rather we want to use a different command just so the
confusion does not close the outer transaction, which would not be what
the user wanted to do.
> Could we put two modes of operation in?
> i.e. if you use SAVEPOINTs/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT, then you're not
> allowed to use nested transactions (and vice versa - so they are
> mutually exclusive)...
This may be a good idea.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Always assume the user will do much worse than the stupidest thing
you can imagine." (Julien PUYDT)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-10 19:23:31 | Re: Weird new time zone |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-10 19:22:17 | Re: [HACKERS] PgSQL 7.4.2 - NaN on Tru64 UNIX |