Committed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On lör, 2011-02-26 at 09:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK. Peter, are you planning to commit this?
Yes.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
2011/2/26 Jan Urbański :
> The docs are included in the latest patch, and it turned out that disabling
> implicit subxacts inside explicit subxacts is not a good idea, so it's been
> fixed in the last patch. There are no unresolved issues AFAICT.
OK. Peter, are you planning to commit this?
--
- Original message -
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> > > The documentation could probably still use more word-smithing but
> > > that can happen later. I'm marking this as ready for a committer.
> >
>
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> On 11-02-06 11:40 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>
>> > PFA an updated patch with documentation.
>>
>> > Yeah, changed them.
>>
>> Those changes look fine. The tests now pass.
>>
>> I've
On 11/02/11 17:22, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-02-10 05:20 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>
>> D'oh, I was thinking about whether it's safe to skip the internal
>> subxact if you're in an implicit one and somehow I always convinced
>> myself that since you eventually close the explicit one, it is.
>>
>>
On 11-02-10 05:20 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
D'oh, I was thinking about whether it's safe to skip the internal
subxact if you're in an implicit one and somehow I always convinced
myself that since you eventually close the explicit one, it is.
Obviously my testing wasn't enough :( Attaching an upda
On 10/02/11 01:26, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-02-09 05:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
>> Is it necessarily a good idea that an explicit subtransaction disables
>> the implicit sub-subtransactions? It might be conceivable that you'd
>> stil
On 11-02-09 05:22 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11-02-06 11:40 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
PFA an updated patch with documentation.
Yeah, changed them.
Those changes look fine. The tests now pass.
I've attached a new version of the patch t
On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:32 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-02-06 11:40 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>
> > PFA an updated patch with documentation.
>
> > Yeah, changed them.
>
> Those changes look fine. The tests now pass.
>
> I've attached a new version of the patch that fixes a few typos/wordi
On 11-02-06 11:40 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
PFA an updated patch with documentation.
Yeah, changed them.
Those changes look fine. The tests now pass.
I've attached a new version of the patch that fixes a few typos/wording
issues I saw in the documentation. I also changed the link to the
On 02/02/11 14:16, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-01-27 05:11 PM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>> On 23/12/10 15:32, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>> Here's a patch implementing explicitly starting subtransactions
>>> mentioned in
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01991.php. It's
>>> an increm
On 02/02/11 14:16, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 11-01-27 05:11 PM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>> On 23/12/10 15:32, Jan Urbański wrote:
>>> Here's a patch implementing explicitly starting subtransactions
>>> mentioned in
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01991.php. It's
>>> an increm
On tor, 2010-12-23 at 15:32 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
> with plpy.subxact():
> plpy.execute("insert into t values (1)")
> plpy.execute("insert into t values (2)")
> plpy.execute("ooops")
Looks pretty cool, but maybe s/subxact/subtransaction/.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 11-01-27 05:11 PM, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 23/12/10 15:32, Jan Urbański wrote:
Here's a patch implementing explicitly starting subtransactions mentioned in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01991.php. It's
an incremental patch on top of the spi-in-subxacts patch sent eari
On 23/12/10 15:32, Jan Urbański wrote:
> Here's a patch implementing explicitly starting subtransactions mentioned in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01991.php. It's
> an incremental patch on top of the spi-in-subxacts patch sent eariler.
Updated to the spi-in-subxacts ve
Here's a patch implementing explicitly starting subtransactions mentioned in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01991.php. It's
an incremental patch on top of the spi-in-subxacts patch sent eariler.
Git branch for this patch:
https://github.com/wulczer/postgres/tree/explicit-s
17 matches
Mail list logo
