Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

At 11:25 23/05/01 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>> >If community will not like UNDO then I'll probably try to implement
>> >dead space collector which will read log files and so on.
>>
>> I'd vote for UNDO; in terms of usability & friendliness it's a big win.
>
>Could you please try it a little more verbose ? I am very interested in
>the advantages you see in "UNDO for rollback only".

I have not been paying strict attention to this thread, so it may have
wandered into a narrower band than I think we are in, but my understanding
is that UNDO is required for partial rollback in the case of failed
commands withing a single TX. Specifically,

- A simple typo in psql can currently cause a forced rollback of the entire
TX. UNDO should avoid this.

- It is not uncommon for application in other databases to handle errors
from the database (eg. missing FKs), and continue a TX.

- Similarly, when we get a new error reporting system, general constraint
(or other) failures should be able to be handled in one TX.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/