Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for
>> subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole
>> transaction tree.
> But then we're back to the application having to know if its in a
> regular transaction or a sub-transaction aren't we? To me that sounds
> just as bad.
Someone (I forget who at this late hour) gave several cogent arguments
that that's *exactly* what we want. Please see the prior discussion...
Right at the moment I think we have a consensus that we should use
SUBBEGIN/SUBEND or some such keywords for subtransactions. (I do not
say we've agreed to exactly those keywords, only that it's a good idea
to make them different from the outer-level BEGIN/END keywords.)
There was also some talk of offering commands based around the notion of
savepoints, but I'm not sure that we have a consensus on that yet.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: joseph speigle||Date: 2004-07-02 04:20:34|
|Subject: Re: demande d'aide|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-07-02 04:08:29|
|Subject: Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler|