| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Arthur Nascimento <tureba(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #16867: savepoints vs. commit and chain |
| Date: | 2021-02-19 08:29:32 |
| Message-ID: | 10736536-3146-7f50-fdf6-aa5390e9c011@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2/19/21 5:02 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/02/18 23:10, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>
>> No objection from me. According to the standard, a COMMIT should
>> destroy all savepoints and terminate the transaction, even if AND CHAIN
>> is specified.
>
> You imply that the standard says that COMMIT AND CHAIN should just
> terminate
> the transaction if there are savepoints defined, i.e., should not start new
> transaction? Since I can (maybe wrongly) interpret your comment like that,
> please let me confirm what the standard says just in case.
The COMMIT terminates the transaction, the AND CHAIN starts a new one.
> I was thinking that COMMIT AND CHAIN should destroy all the savepoints,
> terminate the transaction and start new transaction with the same
> transaction
> characteristics immediately.
Your thinking is correct!
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2021-02-19 08:55:57 | Re: BUG #16869: GROUP BY on primary key unnecessarily triggers a full table scan |
| Previous Message | Andriy Bartash | 2021-02-19 06:06:28 | Re: BUG #16873: CREATE SUBSCRIPTION command hangs (Cross version logical replication) Wait event LibPQWalReceiverRec |