Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>,Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl
Date: 2004-11-30 09:45:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> The real point here is that omitting the per-command subtransaction
> ought to be a hidden optimization, not something that intrudes to the
> point of having unclean semantics when we can't do it.

Sorry to be stupid here, but I didn't understand this when it was 
disussed originally either. Why a subtransaction per command rather than 
one per function? If I've got this right, this is so the PL can tidy up 
behind itself and report/log an appropriate error?

   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-11-30 10:10:32
Subject: Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl
Previous:From: Johan WehtjeDate: 2004-11-30 07:47:14
Subject: Re: Column n.nsptablespace does not exist error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group