Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction
| От | Simon Riggs | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1139932847.1258.958.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) | 
| Ответы | Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction Re: pgsql: Add psql option: -1 or --single-transaction | 
| Список | pgsql-committers | 
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 09:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > How should it work? > > > 1. Remove the BEGIN and COMMIT around blobs? > > 2. Use SAVEPOINT ? > > > Presumably (1). > > Yeah, there is no need for the per-blob begin/commit if we've got one > around the whole restore. Just put an if test around that blob-handling behaviour. The code looks very simple, so patch enclosed to augment the already-applied patch. Chris, do you have a set-up to test out the blob behaviour? If your using them in production you'll spot any further slip-ups; they weren't intentionally ignored in the original patch. > One thing to be careful of is not to suppress BEGINs that are sent on > the dumping side --- it's sometimes hard to tell which parts of pg_dump > execute when. Not touched, nothing fancy going on. [It's a shame we don't support nested BEGINs, for use in nested function calls. I guess we took that out infavour of SAVEPOINTs? I seem to remember some idiot (me wasn't it?) suggesting we should do that.] Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Вложения
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: