Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > I think we are a long way from saying we can or will actually do it.
> > > > > Error handling and resource management (eg locks) are a couple of other
> > > > > huge cans of worms that have yet to be opened. But certainly a solid
> > > > > design for the transaction logging and tuple validity checking is a
> > > > > necessary step.
> > > >
> > > > Is the way to undo data rejected already ?
> > >
> > > You mean abort subtransactions? Each subtransaction gets its own
> > > transaction id, so we just mark that as aborted --- there is no undo of
> > > tuples, though I had originally suggested that approach years ago.
> >
> > Vadim planned to implement the savepoints functionality
> > using UNDO mechanism. AFAIR it was never denied explicitly.
>
> If you go to the TODO.detail/transactions archive, there was discussion
> of using UNDO, and most felt that there were too many problems of having
> to manage the undo system,

This is closely related to the basics of PostgreSQL.
Pleas don't decide it implicitly.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/