Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?
Date
Msg-id 1112644230.16721.791.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: _RollbackFunc : dead code?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 12:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 16:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > > > So I think this is dead code.  The attached patch removes it.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it is dead code; it's a leftover from Vadim's old plan to implement
> > > Oracle-style UNDO.  AFAIK none of the current crop of hackers wants to
> > > proceed in that direction, so we may as well remove the last traces.
> > 
> > Agreed. 
> > 
> > We still need to explain *why* at some point, but thats still one of my
> > WIPs.
> 
> Sorry, what's your WIP?  Explain why nobody wants to implement UNDO?  Or
> implement UNDO?  Or why at some point somebody wanted to implement UNDO?

Nearly: explain why UNDO is not required, and need not be implemented.

Anyway, its a WIP, but not unfortunately a high one, right now.

> Now I remember that in the WAL docs there is a paragraph or two
> mentioning that in a future project we want to implement UNDO ... maybe
> it's a good idea to rip that off.

I agree.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Notes on lock table spilling
Next
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] plPHP in core?