Re: Basic subtransaction facility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic subtransaction facility
Date: 2004-04-20 12:10:43
Message-ID: 7649.1082463043@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> I'm thinking that I'll to add a new elog level to signal a can't-happen
> condition within the transaction machinery, which would abort the whole
> transaction tree (more than ERROR) but would not take the whole backend
> down (less than FATAL). What should it be called? Do people agree that
> it's needed?

If you think it's just for can't-happen conditions, FATAL (or even Assert)
should cover it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-04-20 12:58:26 Re: pg_restore ignore error patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-04-20 10:05:30 Re: CSV patch applied