On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 06:16:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> After all this, I still think the TRANS state is unnecesary. I will add
> checks in the low level routines so they see what TBLOCK state they are
> called in, which should be enough to keep the current functionality
> and robustnes
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:21:07AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
[...]
> The similar changes that remove the ability to recognize failures
> during AbortTransaction are even worse, because cleanup after a failed
> transaction is exactly where you would most expect software bugs to
> pop up.
Hey, I was
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:12:15PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:21:07AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This patch removes the unnecesary TRANS_* states that supposedly
> > > represented "low level transaction state". The sta
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:21:07AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This patch removes the unnecesary TRANS_* states that supposedly
> > represented "low level transaction state". The state is actually
> > unnecesary because the states can be accurately repre
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch removes the unnecesary TRANS_* states that supposedly
> represented "low level transaction state". The state is actually
> unnecesary because the states can be accurately represented using the
> TBLOCK_* states.
Really?
Your changes to Star
