| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious |
| Date: | 2012-08-07 12:39:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoamk9DA9QcRVj6Z8-cOZXCSHmONTDPCg64q3UJW9=9K_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
>
> That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
> question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and believed based
> on the advanced-transactions page that rollback rolls *everything* back.
>
> Some kind of hint that there are execptions is IMO very important. I'm not
> sure what the best form for it to take is.
I'm not sure, either. Maybe we should avoid blanket statements and
just say something like:
Note: Some operations on sequences are non-transactional and will not
be rolled back on transaction abort. See <xref>.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-07 12:41:03 | Re: is prefix pg_ reservated ? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-08-07 11:16:19 | is prefix pg_ reservated ? |