| From: | Jose Soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Date: | 2000-02-23 13:46:54 |
| Message-ID: | 38B3E4CE.9D0DEFC@sferacarta.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus wrote:
> At 11:32 AM 2/22/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >I see no way that allowing the transaction to commit after an overflow
> >can be called consistent with the spec.
>
> You are absolutely right. The whole point is that either a) everything
> commits or b) nothing commits.
>
> Having some kinds of exceptions allow a partial commit while other
> exceptions rollback the transaction seems like a very error-prone
> programming environment to me.
>
It is hard to believe all world is wrong and only we are right. Isn't it ?
;)
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
> Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net.
>
> ************
--
Jose' Soares
Bologna, Italy Jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jose Soares | 2000-02-23 14:39:17 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Previous Message | Jose Soares | 2000-02-23 13:40:53 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rolf Grossmann | 2000-02-23 14:30:46 | First experiences with Postgresql 7.0 |
| Previous Message | Jose Soares | 2000-02-23 13:40:53 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |