| From: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jon Swinth <jswinth(at)atomicpc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two features left |
| Date: | 2002-11-27 20:50:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3DE52FFF.3816036E@nsd.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
My question again is:
How can the upper transaction be aware of an aborted lower transaction?
JLL
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Right. I hadn't planned on ABORT ALL, but it could be done to abort the
> > entire transaction. Is there any standard on that?
>
> I would be inclined to argue against any such thing; if I'm trying to
> confine the effects of an error by doing a subtransaction BEGIN, I don't
> think I *want* to allow something inside the subtransaction to abort my
> outer transaction ...
>
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-27 20:55:08 | Re: Two features left |
| Previous Message | Jon Swinth | 2002-11-27 20:46:08 | Re: Two features left |