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

Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-07-02 04:36:50
Subject: Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler
Previous:From: joseph speigleDate: 2004-07-02 04:20:34
Subject: Re: demande d'aide

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group