| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrej Czapszys" <czapszys(at)comcast(dot)net>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction aborts on syntax error. |
| Date: | 2004-02-13 21:31:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4532.1076707905@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> which might not be for every statement. Savepoints that you don't
>> actually need are going to be a fairly expensive overhead, AFAICS.
> Well with other db's per statement rollback is a no overhead feature,
> so this is pg specific.
I very much doubt that. We are not expending any disk I/O to do
rollback, which is not true in (say) Oracle. I'm concerned about the
internal bookkeeping overhead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Tate | 2004-02-13 22:13:07 | Re: pg_restore problems and suggested resolution |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-13 21:20:27 | Re: Transaction aborts on syntax error. |