Re: Basic subtransaction facility

Alvaro, where are we on this patch.   I think the suggestion was to
throw FATAL rather than add a new error level.

Is this ready to be applied?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:13:35AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > I noticed that I sent an old version because of a system crash (the
> > *one* time I don't review vi -r differences it bites me ... argh).  It
> > has several obvious mistakes.  Please do not waste your time reviewing
> > that; I'll submit a corrected version later, which will also contain
> > some more changes.
>
> Ok, hopefully this one is better.
>
> I'm thinking that I'll to add a new elog level to signal a can't-happen
> condition within the transaction machinery, which would abort the whole
> transaction tree (more than ERROR) but would not take the whole backend
> down (less than FATAL).  What should it be called?  Do people agree that
> it's needed?
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
> "Et put se mouve" (Galileo Galilei)

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073