Re: Nested transaction workaround?

From: "John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested transaction workaround?
Date: 2004-01-13 15:55:52
Message-ID: 4305.192.168.0.64.1074009352.squirrel@mercury.wardbrook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane said:
> I wouldn't call it "nested" transactions: the remote transactions would
be committed, and would stay committed even if you roll back the caller.

Ah, that's true. This means the dblink could be used to provide
functionality equivalent to Oracle's #PRAGMA AUTONOMOUS directive.

Thanks for clearing that up.

John

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith C. Perry 2004-01-13 16:04:27 Re: cryptography, was Drawbacks of using BYTEA for PK?
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2004-01-13 15:54:42 Re: Any real known bugs about wrong selects?