Re: Basic subtransaction facility

Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:02:44 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> wrote:
> >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.
>
> Why? Subtransaction commit propagates an error state to the parent
> transaction. And if a subtransaction is rolled back the parent can
> continue cleanly no matter what was the reason for the subtrans abort.

I think his point was that there are some errors that should abort the
outer transaction too. I think Alvaro mentioned out of memory, but that
is a FATAL error. Alvaro, what error were you thinking of that should
abort the outer transaction?

--
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