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

AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS
Date: 2000-02-28 08:01:58
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7CFD@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Yes, the only difference seems to be, that the changes need not 
> > be sync'd to disk, and you only need one level of nesting as long
> > as the user is not presented the ability to use nested tx.
> >
> 
> Hmm,what do you want now ?

I basically just wanted to say yes, but stated some differences that are
minor
and can be ignored.

> 
> Note that (f)sync is irrelevant at all.
> Partial rollback is the problem of only the backend to be rollbacked
> except locking.
> 
> Vadim has already planned savepoints functionality instead of nested
> tx. I have never heard objections to the proposal.

I think this is the same as nested tx, at least that is my understanding.

> I could see little difference between the implementation of rollback
> to arbitrary savepoints and the implemention of rollback only to the
> savepoint implicitly placed immediately before current statement. 
> 
> Do you want another hack ?

No.

Andreas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-02-28 08:02:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well
Previous:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-02-28 07:56:22
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN

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