The upper transaction really doesn't know of the lower sub-transaction's
abort, unless it looks at the result returned by the subtransaction
commit, just as current code checks the commit of a non-subtransaction.
Is that OK?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> My question again is:
>
> How can the upper transaction be aware of an aborted lower transaction?
>
> JLL
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Right. I hadn't planned on ABORT ALL, but it could be done to abort the
> > > entire transaction. Is there any standard on that?
> >
> > I would be inclined to argue against any such thing; if I'm trying to
> > confine the effects of an error by doing a subtransaction BEGIN, I don't
> > think I *want* to allow something inside the subtransaction to abort my
> > outer transaction ...
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
