| From: | Tyler MacDonald <tyler(at)yi(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen(dot)wiedmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul DuBois <paul(at)snake(dot)net>, dbi-users(at)perl(dot)org, perl(at)lists(dot)mysql(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: undefined behaviour for sub-transactions? |
| Date: | 2005-11-30 22:34:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20051130223411.GF19140@yi.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Either way the end result is that some database drivers poison a
> > transaction if there's any error, others are selective about which errors
> > are fatal and which are not, and still others just don't care at all.
> that is a mis-conception... a transaction *must* be atomic (all or nothing)...
> the reason some databases act that bad is because they don't support
> savepoints, and because postgres does it doesn't need that
> awfulness...
OK, maybe I should have s/poison/behave properly with/. :-)
- Tyler
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-11-30 22:42:26 | Re: Finding uniques across a big join |
| Previous Message | John D. Burger | 2005-11-30 22:27:04 | Re: Finding uniques across a big join |