Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Date
Msg-id 1089399815.17493.597.camel@stromboli
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Responses Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 16:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:38:15AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote:
> 
> > visibility issue and how far do you unwind the depth of subtransactions 
> > or transactions?
> > 
> > BEGIN
> >  UPDATE A
> >  SAVEPOINT X
> >  BEGIN
> >    BEGIN
> >      UPDATE B
> >      BEGIN
> >        UPDATE C
> >        ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT X
> 
> What happens here is that the user will go nuts.  We will have a
> prominent entry in the docs: "using both nested transactions and
> savepoints inside a transaction can cause confusion.  We recommend you
> stick to one or the other."  Or something like that.
> 
> (What would really happen: when ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT X is executed,
> nested transactions created after the SAVEPOINT will be closed.)
> 
> So this is another reason why we should use COMMIT to close a nested
> transaction: it may refer to a transaction that is already closed
> because the user got confused.

Agreed.

Could we put two modes of operation in?
i.e. if you use SAVEPOINTs/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT, then you're not
allowed to use nested transactions (and vice versa - so they are
mutually exclusive)...

Best Regards, Simon Riggs



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Next
From: Dennis Bjorklund
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All