| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested transactions |
| Date: | 2004-06-18 16:32:52 |
| Message-ID: | 21670.1087576372@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Did I make a mistake by promoting subtransactions rather than
> savepoints?
No. We can implement savepoints on top of subtransactions, but not
vice versa. AFAICS the savepoint syntax is just a shorthand for
a constrained form of subtransaction --- essentially one where you
can't explicitly commit a subtransaction, it's implicitly committed
when you commit the parent. I don't see anything but syntactic
sugar here ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jie Liang | 2004-06-18 16:43:38 | Re: Prepare Statement |
| Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-06-18 16:30:17 | Re: JDK 1.5 beta2 and generics |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-18 18:35:17 | Re: Tablespace patch review |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-18 15:38:10 | Re: Nested transactions |