From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Portals and nested transactions |
Date: | 2004-07-14 15:17:43 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D148@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
My answers:
> Q1: Should Portals successfully created within the failed subxact
> be closed? Or should they remain open?
no for protocol level
I can understand a yes to this one for sql level, because it will be
hard to clean up by hand :-( But I like the analogy to hold cursors,
so I would also say no to sql level.
Is the pro yes argument ACID allowed here ? I thought ACID is about
data integrity and not flow control, and also deals with main transactions
and not subtransactions.
> Q2: If the subxact changed the state of a pre-existing Portal, should
> that state change roll back? In particular, can a Close Portal
> operation roll back?
NO for both SQL and protocol level.
The analogy is imho that closing a 'hold cursor' is also never rolled back
> How to do it non-transactionally
> --------------------------------
Sounds like a good plan, but also sounds like a lot of work.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-14 15:29:57 | Re: Release planning |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-14 15:04:02 | Re: serverlog rotation/functions |