| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transaction TODO list |
| Date: | 2004-07-03 16:51:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20040703094032.C9348@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> trigger.c: not at all sure about the model for handling trigger firing
> status. It looks like a subtrans could fire triggers that were pending
> from an outer xact, which is dubious at best.
Well, SET CONSTRAINTS potentially needs to check the state of any
outstanding constraints whose state changes from deferred to immediate. I
don't think we can say that it sets a constraint to immediate, but doesn't
check outstanding instances because they were from an outer transaction
(unless the constraint state reverted on commit which seems really odd).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-03 17:04:25 | Re: LinuxTag wrapup |
| Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-07-03 16:43:47 | Re: LinuxTag wrapup |