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

Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Date: 2004-07-02 17:14:25
Message-ID: 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB34101AEB5@Herge.rcsinc.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for
> subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole
> transaction tree.

Question: with the new syntax, would issuing a BEGIN inside a already
started transaction result in an error?

My concern is about say, a pl/pgsql function that opened and closed a
transation.  This could result in different behaviors depending if
called from within a transaction, which is not true of the old syntax.  

Then again, since a statement is always transactionally wrapped, would
it be required to always issue SUBBEGIN if issued from within a
function?  This would address my concern.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2004-07-02 17:20:25
Subject: anonymous cvs failure
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-07-02 17:09:56
Subject: Subtle bug in clog.c

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