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

Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?
Date: 2005-04-04 19:50:30
Message-ID: 1112644230.16721.791.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 12:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 16:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > > > So I think this is dead code.  The attached patch removes it.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it is dead code; it's a leftover from Vadim's old plan to implement
> > > Oracle-style UNDO.  AFAIK none of the current crop of hackers wants to
> > > proceed in that direction, so we may as well remove the last traces.
> > 
> > Agreed. 
> > 
> > We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
> > WIPs.
> Sorry, what's your WIP?  Explain why nobody wants to implement UNDO?  Or
> implement UNDO?  Or why at some point somebody wanted to implement UNDO?

Nearly: explain why UNDO is not required, and need not be implemented.

Anyway, its a WIP, but not unfortunately a high one, right now.

> Now I remember that in the WAL docs there is a paragraph or two
> mentioning that in a future project we want to implement UNDO ... maybe
> it's a good idea to rip that off.

I agree.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-04-04 19:56:28
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-04-04 19:02:47
Subject: Re: Notes on lock table spilling

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