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

Re: [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling

From: Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pghackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling
Date: 2000-03-09 04:24:24
Message-ID: 38C72778.66B02C85@austin.rr.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> writes:
> >>>> Any suggestions on how I might handle this?
> >>
> >> Er ... run 7.0beta ?
> 
> > Based on recent threads on this list, I have the
> > impression that 7.0beta is not quite ready for production.
> 
> A fair objection, since in fact it isn't. [snip] However, if the
> alternative is continuing to get bit by a 6.5 bug, it seems to me that
> being an early adopter of 7.0 is not such a bad choice.

Agreed, if that is in fact my only alternative.  Fortunately, this
showstopper bug shows up infrequently (it's been a month or two since
the last bite).  I'm still hoping to avoid the bleeding edge on this
production system.

Is there any reasonably straight-forward means to allowing additional
queries within the same transaction after I get an ERROR?

Regards,
Ed Loehr

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Adriaan JoubertDate: 2000-03-09 05:31:01
Subject: Unrecognised machine in 7.0beta1
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-03-09 02:00:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

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