Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1088742988.14882.31.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 22:14, Tom Lane wrote: > Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca> writes: > > On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for > >> subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole > >> transaction tree. > > > But then we're back to the application having to know if its in a > > regular transaction or a sub-transaction aren't we? To me that sounds > > just as bad. > > Someone (I forget who at this late hour) gave several cogent arguments > that that's *exactly* what we want. Please see the prior discussion... > > Right at the moment I think we have a consensus that we should use > SUBBEGIN/SUBEND or some such keywords for subtransactions. (I do not > say we've agreed to exactly those keywords, only that it's a good idea > to make them different from the outer-level BEGIN/END keywords.) > > There was also some talk of offering commands based around the notion of > savepoints, but I'm not sure that we have a consensus on that yet. Aren't subtransactions and their syntax defined by the SQL spec somewhere?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: