On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:01:37PM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote:
> > Is there going to be an option to abort the complete transaction without
> > knowing how deep you are? Perhaps something like "ABORT ALL".
> > The reason I suggest this, is that I can foresee an application or user
> > leaving nested transactions open inadvertently, or not knowing how
> > deeply nested they are when they are called. It's just a thought, and I
> > didn't recall any mention of something like it on the list.
> 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.
"ABORT ALL" sure would be nice.
Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Steve Holdoway||Date: 2004-07-02 00:24:23|
|Subject: transactions within functions|
|Previous:||From: Mark Wu||Date: 2004-07-01 23:38:19|
|Subject: working on support triggers on columns|