Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions
Date: 2011-02-26 05:12:36
Message-ID: AANLkTi=w0Hhu_k2W-8uL-X7hrBKNGK_3fiu6zmGKrzuw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> On 11-02-06 11:40 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>
>> > PFA an updated patch with documentation.
>>
>> > Yeah, changed them.
>>
>> Those changes look fine.  The tests now pass.
>>
>> I've attached a new version of the patch that fixes a few typos/wording
>> issues I saw in the documentation.  I also changed the link to the
>> python reference manual section on context managers. I think it is
>> better to link to that versus the original PEP.
>>
>> The documentation could probably still use more word-smithing but that
>> can happen later.  I'm marking this as ready for a committer.
>
> Is it necessarily a good idea that an explicit subtransaction disables
> the implicit sub-subtransactions?  It might be conceivable that you'd
> still want to do some try/catch within explicit subtransactions.

Is this still an open question, or what is the remaining issue that
needs to be addressed with regards to this patch?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-26 05:15:58 Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-26 05:10:52 Re: pl/python tracebacks