| From: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pghackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling |
| Date: | 2000-03-09 04:24:24 |
| Message-ID: | 38C72778.66B02C85@austin.rr.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> writes:
> >>>> Any suggestions on how I might handle this?
> >>
> >> Er ... run 7.0beta ?
>
> > Based on recent threads on this list, I have the
> > impression that 7.0beta is not quite ready for production.
>
> A fair objection, since in fact it isn't. [snip] However, if the
> alternative is continuing to get bit by a 6.5 bug, it seems to me that
> being an early adopter of 7.0 is not such a bad choice.
Agreed, if that is in fact my only alternative. Fortunately, this
showstopper bug shows up infrequently (it's been a month or two since
the last bite). I'm still hoping to avoid the bleeding edge on this
production system.
Is there any reasonably straight-forward means to allowing additional
queries within the same transaction after I get an ERROR?
Regards,
Ed Loehr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adriaan Joubert | 2000-03-09 05:31:01 | Unrecognised machine in 7.0beta1 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-03-09 02:00:56 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |