| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |
| Date: | 2004-11-30 09:45:39 |
| Message-ID: | 41AC4143.4000503@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The real point here is that omitting the per-command subtransaction
> ought to be a hidden optimization, not something that intrudes to the
> point of having unclean semantics when we can't do it.
Sorry to be stupid here, but I didn't understand this when it was
disussed originally either. Why a subtransaction per command rather than
one per function? If I've got this right, this is so the PL can tidy up
behind itself and report/log an appropriate error?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-11-30 10:10:32 | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |
| Previous Message | Johan Wehtje | 2004-11-30 07:47:14 | Re: Column n.nsptablespace does not exist error |