On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 02:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Offhand I'd say this should draw a "no such cursor as foo" error. > I'm too tired to look into why foo still exists after the rollback...
I'm confused; I wasn't involved in the design discussions about portals and subtransactions this summer, but my understanding is that making portals non-transactional was the conclusion. Shouldn't that imply that a DECLARE in an aborted subtransaction should persist? Certainly, it seems AtSubAbort_Portals() makes sure that READY portals created in an aborted subtxn are adopted by the parent transaction. (It might make sense to persist the cursor to the parent transaction, unless the aborted transaction created a database object the cursor depends upon, a la [1] -- but in that case, IMHO we ought to give a different error message than "no such cursor".) If someone can shed some light on what the spec for this behavior ought to be, I'd be happy to fix the bug. -Neil [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-07/msg00349.php ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
