| 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
| 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 |