From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Date: | 2003-03-21 03:54:53 |
Message-ID: | 3E7A8D0D.741E4AD@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > > Vadim planned to implement the savepoints functionality
> > > > > > using UNDO mechanism. AFAIR it was never denied explicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you go to the TODO.detail/transactions archive, there was discussion
> > > > > of using UNDO, and most felt that there were too many problems of having
> > > > > to manage the undo system,
> > > >
> > > > This is closely related to the basics of PostgreSQL.
> > > > Pleas don't decide it implicitly.
> > >
> > > We took a vote and UNDO lost --- do you want to do another vote?
> >
> > Sorry I missed the vote. Where is it ?
>
> I can't find the vote in the archive. As I remember, Vadim and a few
> others liked UNDO, while more liked the current approach.
As far as I remember there was no such vote or decision.
Note that I'm not particularly on UNDO side but I don't
think that the currently discussed way is much better
than UNDO. Please make the advantage/disadvantages clear
and let me understand the meaning of this thread.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2003-03-21 03:55:38 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-21 03:54:24 | Re: ALTER TABLE / CLUSTER ON |