Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Craig Ringer <ring...@ringerc.id.au> wrote: >> On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes. >> >> That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most >> recent question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM >> and believed based on the advanced-transactions page that >> rollback rolls *everything* back. >> >> Some kind of hint that there are execptions is IMO very >> important. I'm not sure what the best form for it to take is. > > I'm not sure, either. Maybe we should avoid blanket statements > and just say something like: > > Note: Some operations on sequences are non-transactional and will > not be rolled back on transaction abort. See <xref>. I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire "Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in the Introduction section of that chapter with a <ref> would be appropriate. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
