| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures |
| Date: | 2018-01-19 13:42:56 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jL56srHuvzA5vq=ob8vv-UT_HtKi87Uj3mi6qXdAE11zQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 January 2018 at 20:24, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Looks good. Marking ready for committer.
Few questions/points for the docs.
Docs say: "A new transaction is started automatically after a
transaction is ended using these commands"
Presumably this would have exactly the same isolation level and other
transaction characteristics?
(Is it somehow possible to vary that. OK if not, no problem)
The error "cannot commit while a subtransaction is active"
is commented as intending to prevent COMMIT/ROLLBACK inside an EXCEPTION block.
That makes sense. It seems it will also prevent SAVEPOINTs, though
that seems not to be intended.
The two cases are dissimilar and it would be possible to block the
former but allow the latter.
It's not documented or tested that SET LOCAL would work or not work.
Does it work?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-01-19 13:47:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-01-19 13:31:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures |