Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > > Sorry I have a basic question.
> > > Was there any consensus we would introduce nested transactions
> > > (or savepoints) in the way currently discussed ?
> >
> > I think we are a long way from saying we can or will actually do it.
> > Error handling and resource management (eg locks) are a couple of other
> > huge cans of worms that have yet to be opened. But certainly a solid
> > design for the transaction logging and tuple validity checking is a
> > necessary step.
>
> Is the way to undo data rejected already ?

You mean abort subtransactions? Each subtransaction gets its own
transaction id, so we just mark that as aborted --- there is no undo of
tuples, though I had originally suggested that approach years ago.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073