Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1089214048.14278.7.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 23:36, Greg Stark wrote: > "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net> writes: > > > Why not rollback all or commit all? > > > > I really really don't like subbegin and subcommit. I get the feeling > > they'll cause more problems we haven't foreseen yet, but I can't put my > > finger on it. > > Well I've already pointed out one problem. It makes it impossible to write > generic code or reuse existing code and embed it within a transaction. Code > meant to be a nested transaction within a larger transaction becomes > non-interchangeable with code meant to be run on its own. Would a rollback N / abort N where N is the number of levels to rollback / abort work?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: