| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized snapshots |
| Date: | 2011-08-17 00:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | 26943.1313542414@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we'd be far better off to maintain the position that a failed
>> BEGIN does not start a transaction, under any circumstances.
> Also agreed.
>> To do
>> that, we cannot have this new option attached to the BEGIN, ...
> Eh, why not?
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the thread, but I had
the idea that there was some implementation reason why not. If not,
we could still load the option onto BEGIN ... but I still find myself
liking the idea of a separate command better, because of the locking
issue.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-17 01:08:48 | Re: synchronized snapshots |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2011-08-17 00:52:37 | Re: Finding tables dropped by DROP TABLE CASCADE |