Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, at least not if you made that a global change. Doing it that way
>> will mean that a failed subtransaction will not release its locks, no?
> Hmm ... won't they be released when the Resour
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just figured that if we let LockRelation use GetCurrentTransactionId()
> > then the wrong thing happens if we let large objects survive
> > subtransaction commit/abort.
>
> > So I have chan
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just figured that if we let LockRelation use GetCurrentTransactionId()
> then the wrong thing happens if we let large objects survive
> subtransaction commit/abort.
> So I have changed it to use GetTopTransactionId() instead. Is that OK
> with everyb
Hackers,
I just figured that if we let LockRelation use GetCurrentTransactionId()
then the wrong thing happens if we let large objects survive
subtransaction commit/abort. The problem is that when closing a large
object at main transaction commit, which was opened inside a
subtransaction, the cod
