Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> [shrug...] I'd counsel leaving this as-is.
> What information are we loosing by having START and BEGIN use the same
> nodes? Knowing what keyword they used to start the transaction?
Exactly.
> Seems that would only be important if
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> than begin/commit for subxacts? What about savepoints?) Also, what about
> exposing this functionality in plpgsql? Seems like we need some kind of
> exception handling syntax to make this useful. What does Oracle do?
Oracle uses savep
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does START have a different Node from BEGIN anyway? This seems to
> > be a leftover from when people thought they should behave differently.
> > They are the same now, so there's no point in distinguishing them, or is it?
>
> [s
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> TransactionIdIsInProgress needs work/review; comments are off for one
> thing, and it seems *way* too inefficient. Note it should be possible to
> skip subtrans search for sufficiently old xacts (hm ... couldn't we skip
> sinval search t
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
One generalization of this to nested transactions would be:
SUBBEGIN [transactionname]
SUBCOMMIT [transactionname]
SUBABORT [transactionname]
The only departure from the SAVEPOINT syntax is that you are able to
"subcommit" a savepoint. Not sure how useful that is ...
One thi
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 03:38:13PM +1200, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> As I just mentioned in another thread, whatever the syntax for nested
> transactions I'd like to see plain COMMIT/ABORT/ROLLBACK always affect
> the top-level transaction.
>
> Oracle appears to have:
>
> SAVEPOINT savepointname
Tom Lane wrote:
Still need to agree about externally visible behavior (a different stmt
than begin/commit for subxacts? What about savepoints?) Also, what about
exposing this functionality in plpgsql? Seems like we need some kind of
exception handling syntax to make this useful. What does Oracl
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:12:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
> >> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
> >> transaction field
Tom Lane wrote:
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
plus in s
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I haven't looked at JDBC, but at least in the libpq code, what we could
>> safely do is extend the existing no transaction/in transaction/in failed
>> transaction field to provide a five-way distinction: those three cases
>> plus in sub
Tom Lane wrote:
I don't like using ParameterStatus because it's not designed for dealing
with values that may change many times in a single query. Also it sends
strings, which this really isn't.
What about including the new nesting level in the
SUBBEGIN/SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT CommandStatus string? Ye
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:40:23 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does START have a different Node from BEGIN anyway? This seems to
> > be a leftover from when people thought they should behave differently.
> > They are the same now, so th
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does START have a different Node from BEGIN anyway? This seems to
> be a leftover from when people thought they should behave differently.
> They are the same now, so there's no point in distinguishing them, or is it?
[shrug...] I'd counsel leaving
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why does postgres.c discriminate against START TRANSACTION where it
> now allows BEGIN? Could simplify code by just allowing all
> TransactionStmt types.
Why does START have a different Node from BEGIN anyway? This seems to
be a leftov
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> trigger.c: not at all sure about the model for handling trigger firing
> status. It looks like a subtrans could fire triggers that were pending
> from an outer xact, which is dubious at best.
Well, SET CONSTRAINTS potentially needs to check the state of any
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What about reporting transaction state/nesting level to client? I did not
>> like the GUC-variable approach in the original patch, partly on grounds of
>> efficiency and partly because I doubt
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's the promised list of things I think we still need to fix to
> complete the nested-transactions project. I assume you have a private
> todo list as well --- can we compare notes?
Hmm ... there are a lot of things in your list not i
17 matches
Mail list logo
