If there was no official vote, the conclusion came from the discussion
that almost everyone wanted subtransactions without UNDO.
I don't want to rehash it. If you want a vote, let's vote.
Who wants subtransactions with UNDO and who wants it with a separate
transaction id for every subtransaction?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > > > Vadim planned to implement the savepoints functionality
> > > > > > > using UNDO mechanism. AFAIR it was never denied explicitly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you go to the TODO.detail/transactions archive, there was discussion
> > > > > > of using UNDO, and most felt that there were too many problems of having
> > > > > > to manage the undo system,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is closely related to the basics of PostgreSQL.
> > > > > Pleas don't decide it implicitly.
> > > >
> > > > We took a vote and UNDO lost --- do you want to do another vote?
> > >
> > > Sorry I missed the vote. Where is it ?
> >
> > I can't find the vote in the archive. As I remember, Vadim and a few
> > others liked UNDO, while more liked the current approach.
>
> As far as I remember there was no such vote or decision.
> Note that I'm not particularly on UNDO side but I don't
> think that the currently discussed way is much better
> than UNDO. Please make the advantage/disadvantages clear
> and let me understand the meaning of this thread.
>
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
> http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
>
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
