On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:33:07PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >The routine's comments need a bit of work too. Otherwise it seems OK. > >Neil or anyone else --- see an issue here? > > The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state > modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it > wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE) > transactional as well -- so that a CLOSE in an aborted subtransaction > would not actually destroy the cursor.
Hmm ... not sure how hard that is. We left a lot of details for 8.1 though, like trying to save the state of the executor related to the cursor so that FETCH is transactional too. > Other than that, I think there ought to be some user-level documentation > for how cursors and savepoints interact, There is some detail (as of my patch, outdated) in http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-rollback-to.html If you have a suggestion on where else it should go I'm all ears ... > and some regression tests for this behavior, but I'm happy to add that > myself if no one beats me to it. Please do. I'll post a corrected patch ASAP, including the doc change. -- Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) "La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
