Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Heikki Linnakangas
Тема Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT
Дата
Msg-id 4BFBA3FD.7080407@enterprisedb.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT  (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>)
Ответы Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT  (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 25/05/10 13:03, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On May 25, 2010, at 6:08 , Sam Vilain wrote:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-savepoint.html
>>
>> Lead us to believe that if you roll back to the same savepoint name
>> twice in a row, that you might start walking back through the
>> savepoints.  I guess I missed the note on ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT that
>> that is not how it works.
>>
>> Here is the section:
>>
>> SQL requires a savepoint to be destroyed automatically when another
>> savepoint with the same name is established. In PostgreSQL, the old
>> savepoint is kept, though only the more recent one will be used when
>> rolling back or releasing. (Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the
>> older one to again become accessible to ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT and
>> RELEASE SAVEPOINT.) Otherwise, SAVEPOINT is fully SQL conforming.
>
> I'm confused. The sentence in brackets "Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become
accessibleto ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT and RELEASE SAVEPOINT" implies that you *will* walk backwards through all the
savepointsnamed "a" if you repeatedly issue "ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT a", no? If that is not how it actually works, then
thiswhole paragraph is wrong, I'd say.
 

Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become 
accessible, as the doc says, but rolling back to a savepoint does not 
implicitly release it. You'll have to use RELEASE SAVEPOINT for that.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Hot Standby performance and deadlocking
Следующее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)