From: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Mike Benoit" <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca>, "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 04:36:29 |
Message-ID: | 1088742988.14882.31.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 22:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Aren't subtransactions and their syntax defined by the SQL spec
somewhere?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-07-02 04:36:50 | Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler |
Previous Message | joseph speigle | 2004-07-02 04:20:34 | Re: demande d'aide |