Re: Basic subtransaction facility

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:26:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I don't understand your elog(ERROR) vs. ereport(ERROR) distinction.  Was
> that a typo?

Nope.  When Tom upgraded the error handling, he changed almost
everything to ereport(), but in the places where there's a violation of
expected conditions, he retained elog().  We don't provide special error
code, nor there is space for errhints etc.

Those unexpected conditions I thought we could just abort the
transaction tree; but maybe we have to close the backend as Manfred and
Tom say.  I don't think there's space for PANIC though (unless we
suspect shared state corruption ... is that checked for anywhere?  I
haven't looked.)

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"No single strategy is always right (Unless the boss says so)"
(Larry Wall)