From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Science <science(at)misuse(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bit by "commands ignored until end of transaction block" again |
Date: | 2009-07-27 00:00:28 |
Message-ID: | 1248652828.2303.5.camel@ayaki |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 19:15 -0400, Science wrote:
> FWIW, the way the Rails ORM ActiveRecord (another fairly damaged ORM)
> handles this is by allowing you to open any number of transaction
> blocks, but only the outer transaction block commits (in Pg):
>
> Property.transaction { # SQL => 'BEGIN'
> User.transaction {
> Foo.transaction {
> Foo.connection.execute('--some sql code') # SQL => '--some sql code'
> }
> }
> } # SQL => 'COMMIT'
What happens if, Foo.transaction does something that causes an error,
though, or issues a rollback? It's not creating savepoints, so if
Foo.transaction rolls back it throws out the work of User.transaction
and Property.transaction too.
Ugh.
That design would be quite good _IF_ it used savepoints:
Property.transaction { # SQL => 'BEGIN'
User.transaction { # SQL => SAVEPOINT User
Foo.transaction { # SQL => SAVEPOINT Foo
Foo.connection.execute('--some sql code') # SQL => '--some sql code'
} # SQL => RELEASE SAVEPOINT Foo
} # SQL => RELEASE SAVEPOINT User
} # SQL => 'COMMIT'
... so that inner transactions could ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT on error ,
and so that asking for a rollback would give you a ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT
if the transaction is a subtransaction.
--
Craig Ringer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Science | 2009-07-27 12:40:28 | Re: Bit by "commands ignored until end of transaction block" again |
Previous Message | Science | 2009-07-26 23:15:07 | Re: Bit by "commands ignored until end of transaction block" again |