Re: will I need nested transactions ?
От | Ben |
---|---|
Тема | Re: will I need nested transactions ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0405170952370.12573-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | will I need nested transactions ? (Andreas <maps.on@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
If you want the model where if any updates fail, all should be rolled back, then you don't need nested transactions, just multiple aborts: begin; update d; if error abort; update c; if error abort; ... commit; On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andreas wrote: > Hi, > > will I need "nested transactions" which - as I read - aren't > implemented, yet ? > > I have some objects that rely on each other. > Each has a status like proposal, working, canceled. > > table-A <--- table-B <--- table-C <--- table-D > > Those are (1, OO) relationships, > A status change above gets cascaded down but not upwards. > If I try to cancel a table-A-record every "lower" record in B, C, D > should be canceled, too, when the transaction is committed. > Since it is possible, that I cancel e.g. a table B object only its > children should get updated but not table-A. > > I thought somthing along this to cancel a type B object: > > BEGIN > BEGIN > BEGIN > UPDATE table-D > END > if no error UPDATE table-C > END > if no error UPDATE table-B > END > > Does this make sense and will it provide the necesary protection ? > > BTW the client is Access 2000 via ODBC talking to an PostgreSQL 7.4.2 on > Linux. > > > Regards > Andreas > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: