| From: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions |
| Date: | 2011-02-26 08:38:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1298709511.9591.5.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
----- Original message -----
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> > > The documentation could probably still use more word-smithing but
> > > that can happen later. I'm marking this as ready for a committer.
> >
> > Is it necessarily a good idea that an explicit subtransaction disables
> > the implicit sub-subtransactions? It might be conceivable that you'd
> > still want to do some try/catch within explicit subtransactions.
>
> Is this still an open question, or what is the remaining issue that
> needs to be addressed with regards to this patch?
The docs are included in the latest patch, and it turned out that disabling implicit subxacts inside explicit subxacts is not a good idea, so it's been fixed in the last patch. There are no unresolved issues AFAICT.
Jan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-02-26 08:43:12 | Re: pl/python do not delete function arguments |
| Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-02-26 08:34:38 | Re: pl/python tracebacks |