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

Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?
Date: 2005-03-31 16:24:33
Message-ID: 20050331162433.GI31118@dcc.uchile.cl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 16:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > > So I think this is dead code.  The attached patch removes it.
> > 
> > Yeah, it is dead code; it's a leftover from Vadim's old plan to implement
> > Oracle-style UNDO.  AFAIK none of the current crop of hackers wants to
> > proceed in that direction, so we may as well remove the last traces.
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
> WIPs.

Sorry, what's your WIP?  Explain why nobody wants to implement UNDO?  Or
implement UNDO?  Or why at some point somebody wanted to implement UNDO?

Now I remember that in the WAL docs there is a paragraph or two
mentioning that in a future project we want to implement UNDO ... maybe
it's a good idea to rip that off.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"Un poeta es un mundo encerrado en un hombre" (Victor Hugo)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-31 16:32:27
Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-03-31 16:07:39
Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?

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