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.
> We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-03-31 16:32:27|
|Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code? |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-03-31 16:07:39|
|Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?|