From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
Date: | 2000-02-24 16:39:58 |
Message-ID: | 22110.951410398@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> I find this hard to believe, and even harder to believe that it's
>> mandated by the standard. What you're essentially claiming is that
>> everyone but us has nested transactions
> They don't necessarily have nested tx, although some have.
> All they provide is atomicity of single statements.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck no matter what it's called. How would you provide atomicity
of a single statement without a transaction-equivalent implementation?
That statement might be affecting many tuples in several different
tables. It's not noticeably easier to roll back one statement than
a whole sequence of them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-24 16:42:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-24 16:34:18 | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |