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

Re: Basic subtransaction facility

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Date: 2004-04-29 04:26:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro, where are we on this patch.   I think the suggestion was to
> > throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.
> The assumption was that we would only want an additional level for
> catching can't-happen conditions.  ISTM this is not true.  Consider an
> out of memory error: do we want to only rollback the affected
> subtransaction, or the whole transaction tree?  If we want the latter we
> will have to invent a new elevel.
> In fact, I think we should mark ERROR as aborting the whole transaction
> tree, and create a new level which would abort the innermost
> subtransaction.  We would then change whatever is appropiate to the new
> elevel.  Doing otherwise would leave us open to unexpected conditions
> causing only subtrans abort, which could lead to unreliable behavior.
> In short, I think all elog(ERROR) should have different behaviour from
> ereport(ERROR), at least.  And I don't think the answer should be
> elog(FATAL) for the former.

Agreed we need a new error code to abort a subtransaction rather than
the entire transaction.  

I don't understand your elog(ERROR) vs. ereport(ERROR) distinction.  Was
that a typo?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-04-29 04:43:19
Subject: Re: Turning off cluster patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-04-29 04:03:40
Subject: Re: SECURITY DEFINER not being propagated...

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