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
> >subtransact
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 07:29:07PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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 thinkin
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:42:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In general I tend to agree with Manfred's point: if you have reason to
> suspect global corruption of a backend's state then you should do FATAL
> (or possibly PANIC). If you do not suspect this then you ought to just
> ERROR. I do not
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:26:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I don't understand your elog(ERROR) vs. ereport(ERROR) distinction. Was
> that a typo?
Nope. When Tom upgraded the error handling, he changed almost
everything to ereport(), but in the places where there's a violation of
expected
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manfred Koizar wrote:
>> 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 po
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?
Theoretically, if you abo
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 app
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. Doi
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Alvaro, where are we on this patch. I think the suggestion was to
> > throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.
>
> The assumption was that we would only want an additional level for
> catching can
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro, where are we on this patch. I think the suggestion was to
> throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.
The assumption was that we would only want an additional level for
catching can't-happen conditions. ISTM this is
[ Tom will review.]
Description from previous patch added to patched queue too.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
-
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:30:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Alvaro, where are we on this patch. I think the suggestion was to
> throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.
>
> Is this ready to be applied?
I forgot to verify if it worked correctly with #undef SUBTRANSACTIONS
--- it di
I wrote ten seconds ago:
> This version does. This patch includes both patches I
> posted and a few more changes, and does the following:
I mean this one.
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
"¿Qué importan los años? Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que
a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar
Alvaro, where are we on this patch. I think the suggestion was to
throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.
Is this ready to be applied?
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:13:35AM -0400, Alvaro He
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm thinking that I'll to add a new elog level to signal a can't-happen
> condition within the transaction machinery, which would abort the whole
> transaction tree (more than ERROR) but would not take the whole backend
> down (less than FATAL). What sh
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:13:35AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I noticed that I sent an old version because of a system crash (the
> *one* time I don't review vi -r differences it bites me ... argh). It
> has several obvious mistakes. Please do not waste your time reviewing
> that; I'll submi
Patch withdrawn by author.
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> Here is a very preliminar patch that allows the user to say "BEGIN"
> inside a transaction and have the system react accordingly. This is
> only a modific
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 11:29:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you want. When not #defined, the behavior is the same as the current
> > code, so it shouldn't affect anything. However I posted mainly so
> > people could comment on the modifications, a
Added to queue until Tom's review and/or application.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you want. When not #defined, the behavior is the same as the current
> > code, so it shouldn't affect anything. However I posted mainly so
> > people could comment on the modifications, and maybe Heikki Linnakangas
> > could see
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want. When not #defined, the behavior is the same as the current
> code, so it shouldn't affect anything. However I posted mainly so
> people could comment on the modifications, and maybe Heikki Linnakangas
> could see how it affects his two pha
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 10:03:40AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Do you want this applied?
If you want. When not #defined, the behavior is the same as the current
code, so it shouldn't affect anything. However I posted mainly so
people could comment on the modifications, and maybe Heikki Linnak
Do you want this applied?
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> Here is a very preliminar patch that allows the user to say "BEGIN"
> inside a transaction and have the system react accordingly. This is
> only a modifica
23 matches
Mail list logo
