Is it possible
to have another transatction in a transaction??? In the following example the
last ROLLBACK is totally ignored(transaction1).
//connect to
database$database
=
dbConnect($dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass, $dbname);dbExec($database, "BEGIN");
//transaction1//*
dbExec($databa
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:47:06AM +0200, Andrei Bintintan wrote:
> Is it possible to have another transatction in a transaction???
PostgreSQL 8.0 (currently in beta) has savepoints, so you'll be
able to do this:
BEGIN;
UPDATE orders SET technikernotiz='51' WHERE id=16143;
SAVEPOINT foo;
UPDATE
I thought nested transactions are available in the new
release (8) coming up.
Ted
--- Andrei Bintintan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to have another transatction in a
> transaction??? In the following example the last
> ROLLBACK is totally ignored(transaction1).
>
> //connect to
On Tuesday 09 November 2004 18:24, Theodore Petrosky wrote:
> I thought nested transactions are available in the new
> release (8) coming up.
how to commit/rollback them ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space ma
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:23:02AM +0300, sad wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 November 2004 18:24, Theodore Petrosky wrote:
> > I thought nested transactions are available in the new
> > release (8) coming up.
>
> how to commit/rollback them ?
CREATE TABLE person (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT NOT NULL
Sorry, but I understand that your example is not really about nested
transactions, but about sequential transactions.
so, the primary question remains:
how to commit/rollback them ?
--- Michael Fuhr <__> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:23:02AM +0300, sad wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 November 20
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:45:19AM -0800, Riccardo G. Facchini wrote:
> Sorry, but I understand that your example is not really about nested
> transactions, but about sequential transactions.
Here's a more elaborate example. If this doesn't demonstrate the
capability you're looking for, then ple
O Michael Fuhr έγραψε στις Nov 10, 2004 :
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:45:19AM -0800, Riccardo G. Facchini wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I understand that your example is not really about nested
> > transactions, but about sequential transactions.
>
> Here's a more elaborate example. If this doesn't
EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Theodore Petrosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrei
Bintintan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "sad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] A transaction in transaction? Possible?
> O Mich
O Peter Eisentraut έγραψε στις Nov 10, 2004 :
> Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
> > Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback
> > blocks?
>
> Possibly. But that consideration would have been more relevant about 6
> years ago when they wrote the SAVEPOINT syntax into the SQL stand
Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
> Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback
> blocks?
Possibly. But that consideration would have been more relevant about 6
years ago when they wrote the SAVEPOINT syntax into the SQL standard.
:)
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.
Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
> In other words, now with savepoints, BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK;
> can be replaced with
> SAVEPOINT foo; RELEASE foo; ROLLBACK TO foo; respectively.
>
> If only transactions weren't a requirement for SAVEPOINTs,
> what would we then need BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK; for?
Note
Achilleus Mantzios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just a very naive thought
> Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks?
We actually had it working that way initially, but changed to the
spec-defined behavior, because (a) it wasn't standard, and (b) it
was confusing.
On Wednesday, 10 November 2004 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Achilleus Mantzios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just a very naive thought
> > Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks?
>
> We actually had it working that way initially, but changed to the
> spec-defined be
Stefan Weiss wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2004 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Achilleus Mantzios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Just a very naive thought
>>>Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks?
>>
>>We actually had it working that way initially, but change
Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
O Michael Fuhr έγραψε στις Nov 10, 2004 :
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:45:19AM -0800, Riccardo G. Facchini wrote:
Sorry, but I understand that your example is not really about nested
transactions, but about sequential transactions.
Here's a more elaborate example. If this
On Thursday, 11 November 2004 09:23, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Stefan Weiss wrote:
> > These tables are connected by foreign keys, but without "on delete"
> > triggers.
>
> Why "without" ? Are you looking to solve a problem introduced by
> yourself ?
There are numerous checks involved before a cust
Andrei Bintintan wrote:
//Is it possible to have another transatction in a transaction??? In the
following example the last ROLLBACK is totally ignored(transaction1).
///connect to database/
$database = dbConnect($dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass, $dbname);
dbExec($database, "BEGIN"); //transaction1
///*
18 matches
Mail list logo
