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

Re: Basic subtransaction facility

From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Date: 2004-04-29 16:42:31
Message-ID: opb290h7jjsh20ccmnf891dspiho8mpb7o@email.aon.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:02:44 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> wrote:
>In fact, I think we should mark ERROR as aborting the whole transaction
>tree, and create a new level which would abort the innermost
>subtransaction.  We would then change whatever is appropiate to the new
>elevel.  Doing otherwise would leave us open to unexpected conditions
>causing only subtrans abort, which could lead to unreliable behavior.

Why?  Subtransaction commit propagates an error state to the parent
transaction.  And if a subtransaction is rolled back the parent can
continue cleanly no matter what was the reason for the subtrans abort.

Servus
 Manfred

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-04-29 17:06:34
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Previous:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2004-04-29 07:38:28
Subject: Re: SECURITY DEFINER not being propagated...

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