Manfred Koizar wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:02:44 -0400, Alvaro Herrera > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >In fact, I think we should mark ERROR as aborting the whole transaction > >tree, and create a new level which would abort the innermost > >subtransaction. We would then change whatever is appropiate to the new > >elevel. Doing otherwise would leave us open to unexpected conditions > >causing only subtrans abort, which could lead to unreliable behavior. > > Why? Subtransaction commit propagates an error state to the parent > transaction. And if a subtransaction is rolled back the parent can > continue cleanly no matter what was the reason for the subtrans abort.
I think his point was that there are some errors that should abort the outer transaction too. I think Alvaro mentioned out of memory, but that is a FATAL error. Alvaro, what error were you thinking of that should abort the outer transaction? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
