Fair enough Bruce.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> The upper transaction really doesn't know of the lower sub-transaction's
> abort, unless it looks at the result returned by the subtransaction
> commit, just as current code checks the commit of a non-subtransaction.
> Is that OK?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> > My question again is:
> >
> > How can the upper transaction be aware of an aborted lower transaction?
> >
> > JLL
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > Right. I hadn't planned on ABORT ALL, but it could be done to abort the
> > > > entire transaction. Is there any standard on that?
> > >
> > > I would be inclined to argue against any such thing; if I'm trying to
> > > confine the effects of an error by doing a subtransaction BEGIN, I don't
> > > think I *want* to allow something inside the subtransaction to abort my
> > > outer transaction ...
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> >
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster