Re: Statement-level rollback

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Statement-level rollback
Date: 2018-12-07 19:32:13
Message-ID: 20181207193213.glqouoz6qvlexi6y@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-12-07 16:20:06 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> case TBLOCK_BEGIN:
> + s->rollbackScope = XactRollbackScope;
> s->blockState = TBLOCK_INPROGRESS;
> + if (s->rollbackScope == XACT_ROLLBACK_SCOPE_STMT)
> + {
> + PushTransaction();
> + s = CurrentTransactionState; /* changed by push */
> + s->name = MemoryContextStrdup(TopTransactionContext, "pg internal");
> + StartSubTransaction();
> + s->blockState = TBLOCK_SUBINPROGRESS;
> + }

Isn't this going to be performing ridiculously bad, to the point of
being not much but a trap for users?

I can see the feature being useful, but I don't think we should accept a
feature that'll turn bulkloading with insert into a server shutdown
scenario.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-07 19:44:17 Re: Statement-level rollback
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-07 19:20:06 Statement-level rollback