Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Basic subtransaction facility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Date: 2004-04-20 12:10:43
Message-ID: 7649.1082463043@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> I'm thinking that I'll to add a new elog level to signal a can't-happen
> condition within the transaction machinery, which would abort the whole
> transaction tree (more than ERROR) but would not take the whole backend
> down (less than FATAL).  What should it be called?  Do people agree that
> it's needed?

If you think it's just for can't-happen conditions, FATAL (or even Assert)
should cover it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-04-20 12:58:26
Subject: Re: pg_restore ignore error patch
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-04-20 10:05:30
Subject: Re: CSV patch applied

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group