On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:42:31PM +0200, 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.
Not necessarily; consider can't-happen conditions, like everything that is marked elog(ERROR) rather than ereport(ERROR). Corrupt hashes, should-exist catalog entries that are not there, etc. They should not be frequent, be we should be prepared for them. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
