| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bug w/ cursors and savepoints |
| Date: | 2005-01-26 04:33:07 |
| Message-ID: | 41F71D83.6070500@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The routine's comments need a bit of work too. Otherwise it seems OK.
> Neil or anyone else --- see an issue here?
The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state
modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it
wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE)
transactional as well -- so that a CLOSE in an aborted subtransaction
would not actually destroy the cursor.
Other than that, I think there ought to be some user-level documentation
for how cursors and savepoints interact, and some regression tests for
this behavior, but I'm happy to add that myself if no one beats me to it.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Adler | 2005-01-26 04:35:44 | Re: Performance of the temporary table creation and use. |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-01-26 03:46:56 | Re: OLS BOF for linux & postgresql |