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

From Bort, Paul
Subject Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review
Date
Msg-id 735D404BD9E7EB44B9CDFC27FC88809B01C4DA66@mail2.tmwsystems.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Nested xacts: looking for testers and review  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Responses Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wisely wrote:
> While we clearly want this functionality, I tend to agree with Barry
> that COMMIT IGNORE ABORT (and the other variants that have 
> been floated)
> is a horrid, confusing name for it.  I would suggest using 
> END with some
> modifier, instead.  Perhaps
> 
>     END [ WORK | TRANSACTION ] [ IGNORE ERRORS ]
> 
> END doesn't so directly imply that you are trying to commit a failed
> transaction.
> 

Would it make more sense to specify at the time the optional subtransaction
is committed that it is not critical to the completion of the outer
transaction?

BEGIN; BEGIN;   DROP TABLE foo; COMMIT NON_CRITICAL; CREATE TABLE foo (i int);
COMMIT;

I don't 'get' the nested transaction code, so I don't know how horrible this
would be to write. It just seemed more useful, because you could specify
which sub-transactions are show stoppers, and which ones aren't.

Or if I'm completely off base, please forgive my intrusion. 

Paul


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested xacts: looking for testers and review
Next
From: Andreas Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] serverlog function (log_destination file)