From: | "Matthew Miller" <mattm(at)epx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL: EXCEPTION NOSAVEPOINT |
Date: | 2005-09-02 01:58:41 |
Message-ID: | 50147A4648789E49A721EEB6DAB9C4DC0157C8@az001exh.epx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> In general I don't think it even makes sense to think of making
> executor rollback non-transactional.
Agreed.
I would not want to rollback some statements and not others within a
transaction. I would like a complete rollback to happen, but only when
the exception propogates out of the exception block unhandled, not when
the exception is first thrown. Maybe if I could get into the TRY
section of the PG_CATCH()/PG_TRY() construct without an intervening
elog(ERROR) then I'd have a chance ...
> Seems like your choices are
> ...
> implementing a separate expression evaluator
> ...
> make the restriction "read-only database access"
> ...
Thanks for all these ideas. I'm just getting to know the PG code tree,
and I appreciate the guidance.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2005-09-02 02:05:00 | Two different defs of MAX_TUPLES_PER_PAGE |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-09-02 01:16:59 | Re: PL/pgSQL: EXCEPTION NOSAVEPOINT |