From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)reveredata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Manfred Koizar" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Date: | 2003-03-21 07:35:52 |
Message-ID: | 005101c2ef7c$82998ec0$15f5fea9@home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If there was no official vote, the conclusion came from the discussion
> that almost everyone wanted subtransactions without UNDO.
>
> I don't want to rehash it. If you want a vote, let's vote.
>
> Who wants subtransactions with UNDO and who wants it with a separate
> transaction id for every subtransaction?
Don't mess up things, Bruce - UNDO is not for subtransactions only!
UNDO would allow immediate storage cleanup and vacuum would
not be required anymore. Subtransactions/savepoints would be just
"by-effect" of UNDO. (And, btw, how would you implement "implicit"
savepoints with "separate subtrans id" approach?)
But do we need any voting, actually? Is there anybody who want/ready
implement UNDO functionality? No? Then there is nothing to vote about.
(Though I personally consider "subtrans id-s" as "messing up messy
transaction system". Messing up is always easier then re-designing).
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Haller | 2003-03-21 13:44:07 | Re: timestamp/date in ecpg |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> | 2003-03-21 07:11:21 | Re: Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Extracting time from timestamp |