On 10/02/11 01:26, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-02-09 05:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> Is it necessarily a good idea that an explicit subtransaction disables
>> the implicit sub-subtransactions? It might be conceivable that you'd
>> still want to do some try/catch within explicit subtransactions.
>>
>
> I had tested nested subtransactions but not a normal try/catch within a
> subtransaction. That sounds reasonable to allow.
>
> Unfortunately it leads to:
>
> [crash]
D'oh, I was thinking about whether it's safe to skip the internal
subxact if you're in an implicit one and somehow I always convinced
myself that since you eventually close the explicit one, it is.
Obviously my testing wasn't enough :( Attaching an updated patch with
improved docs incorporating Steve's fixes, and fixes & tests for not
statring the implicit subxact. That actually makes the patch a bit
smaller ;) OTOH I had to remove the section from the docs that claimed
performance improvement due to only starting the explicit subxact...
Cheers,
Jan