Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry I have a basic question.
> Was there any consensus we would introduce nested transactions
> (or savepoints) in the way currently discussed ?
I think we are a long way from saying we can or will actually do it.
Error handling and resource management (eg locks) are a couple of other
huge cans of worms that have yet to be opened. But certainly a solid
design for the transaction logging and tuple validity checking is a
necessary step.
My feeling is that the right way to proceed is to nail down a paper
design for each of the major aspects of the problem, before anyone
actually spends any time coding. There would be little point in
implementing subtransaction logging if we don't know how to do the
other things.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
