Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4BFDA77E.6030302@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT (Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [spf:guess] Re: ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/05/10 02:00, Sam Vilain wrote: > Florian Pflug wrote: >> On May 25, 2010, at 12:18 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become accessible, as the doc says, but rolling backto a savepoint does not implicitly release it. You'll have to use RELEASE SAVEPOINT for that. >> >> Ah, now I get it. Thanks. >> >> Would changing "Releasing the newer savepoint will cause ... " to "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint" or maybeeven "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint with RELEASE SAVEPOINT will cause ..." make things clearer? > > Yes, probably - your misreading matches my misreading of it :-) +1. > There is another way you can get there - releasing to a savepoint before > the re-used savepoint name will also release the savepoints after it. > > ie > > savepoint foo; > savepoint bar; > savepoint foo; > release to savepoint bar; > release to savepoint foo; > > After the first release, the second 'foo' savepoint is gone. I think > this is a key advantage in saving the old savepoints. Yep. Do we need to mention that in that notice? I don't think so, it would become really verbose. Florian's wording above seems fine. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: