Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review
Date
Msg-id 3449.1086898170@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 03:39:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> END doesn't so directly imply that you are trying to commit a failed
>> transaction.

> The problem with END is how about executing it inside a PL/pgSQL
> function.  Can we distinguish it from plpgsql's END?

We're going to have to deal with that on the BEGIN side anyway.
A reasonable possibility would be to require the TRANSACTION word
to appear when you do it in plpgsql.

> Also, COMMITing an aborted main transaction is the same as ENDing it;
> and in fact, it's the same as ROLLBACK.  Why is it more confusing for a
> subtransaction to behave the same?

But the point here is that the behavior would *not* be the same.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: More vacuum.c refactoring
Next
From: "Bort, Paul"
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review