From: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions |
Date: | 2011-02-10 10:20:06 |
Message-ID: | 4D53BBD6.7050507@wulczer.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/02/11 01:26, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-02-09 05:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> Is it necessarily a good idea that an explicit subtransaction disables
>> the implicit sub-subtransactions? It might be conceivable that you'd
>> still want to do some try/catch within explicit subtransactions.
>>
>
> I had tested nested subtransactions but not a normal try/catch within a
> subtransaction. That sounds reasonable to allow.
>
> Unfortunately it leads to:
>
> [crash]
D'oh, I was thinking about whether it's safe to skip the internal
subxact if you're in an implicit one and somehow I always convinced
myself that since you eventually close the explicit one, it is.
Obviously my testing wasn't enough :( Attaching an updated patch with
improved docs incorporating Steve's fixes, and fixes & tests for not
statring the implicit subxact. That actually makes the patch a bit
smaller ;) OTOH I had to remove the section from the docs that claimed
performance improvement due to only starting the explicit subxact...
Cheers,
Jan
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
plpython-explicit-subxacts.diff | text/x-patch | 49.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-10 10:29:47 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-02-10 10:09:33 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |