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

Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Date: 2004-07-02 04:14:03
Message-ID: 9333.1088741643@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: joseph speigleDate: 2004-07-02 04:20:34
Subject: Re: demande d'aide
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-07-02 04:08:29
Subject: Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler

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