Re: [INTERFACES] RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE

From: tolik(at)icomm(dot)ru (Anatoly K(dot) Lasareff)
To: "Taral" <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE
Date: 1998-11-18 07:49:49
Message-ID: x7n25pa19e.fsf@tolikus.hq.aaanet.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

>>>>> "T" == Taral <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com> writes:

>> > Is the current transaction model adequate or do we need nested
>> > transactions ?
>>
>> Err... I didn't answer your question, did I? The COS Transaction Service
>> implements nested transactions.

T> Aha... finally found the line I was looking for:

T> "An implementation of the Transaction Service is not required to support
T> nested transactions."

To my mind there are _no_ nested transactions in Postgres.

--
Anatoly K. Lasareff Email: tolik(at)icomm(dot)ru
Senior programmer

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Massimo Dal Zotto 1998-11-18 10:42:36 Re: [HACKERS] Concurrency control questions 6.3.2 vs. 6.4
Previous Message Michael Meskes 1998-11-18 07:48:43 Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Postgres DBA 1998-11-18 08:48:17 RE: [GENERAL] problem of upper/lower case in table names
Previous Message Michael Meskes 1998-11-18 07:48:43 Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE