Hi all!
my $0.02 on this, though I am not an expert in DBs at all.
>TL> "Timur V. Irmatov" <itvthor@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>>> It is very simple to implement (i think) it other way - just do not
>>> force transaction to enter abort state afer exception.
>
>TL> Better study the backend's error handling before you say that.
side-note: I never had a look at this code, but if you want to scare off people from changing anything there, because it looks too complicated, it might indicate the need for some refactoring :-)
>but I still insist that using nested transaction to allow
>transactions to continue after SQL exceptions is not a good idea..
What is the whole point of having a nested transaction vs. a single transaction?
IMHO, if you want to abort all outer transactions when an inner transaction fails this behaviour would be no different from having only one transaction for the whole action.
As already stated the outer transactions can check on the return status of an inner transaction and decide on, what needs to be done in cause of its failure.
Jan
