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

Re: Basic subtransaction facility

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Date: 2004-04-20 05:32:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:13:35AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I noticed that I sent an old version because of a system crash (the
> *one* time I don't review vi -r differences it bites me ... argh).  It
> has several obvious mistakes.  Please do not waste your time reviewing
> that; I'll submit a corrected version later, which will also contain
> some more changes.

Ok, hopefully this one is better.

I'm thinking that I'll to add a new elog level to signal a can't-happen
condition within the transaction machinery, which would abort the whole
transaction tree (more than ERROR) but would not take the whole backend
down (less than FATAL).  What should it be called?  Do people agree that
it's needed?

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]>)
"Et put se mouve" (Galileo Galilei)

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Fabien COELHODate: 2004-04-20 07:36:18
Subject: Re: pg_restore ignore error patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-04-20 04:15:05
Subject: Re: EXECUTE command tag returns actual command

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group