Thread

Re: [GENERAL] AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS

Jose Soares <jose@sferacarta.com> — 2000-02-28T08:44:57Z

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Jose Soares wrote:
>
> > NOTICE:  (transaction aborted): all queries ignored until end of transaction block
> >
> > *ABORT STATE*
>
> > Why PostgreSQL doesn't make an implicit ROLLBACK instead of waitting for a
> > COMMIT/ROLLBACK ?
>
> The PostgreSQL transaction paradigm seems to be that if you explicitly
> start a transaction, you get to explicitly end it. This is of course at
> odds with SQL, but it seems internally consistent to me. I hope that one
> of these days we can offer the other behaviour as well.
>
> > Why PostgreSQL allows a COMMIT in this case ?
>
> Good question. I assume it doesn't actually commit though, does it? I
> think a CHECK_IF_ABORTED (sp?) before calling the commit utility routine
> would be appropriate. Anyone?
>

Seems that PostgreSQL has a basically difference from other databases, it has two
operation modes
"transaction mode" and "non-transaction mode".
If you want initialize a transaction in PostgreSQL you must declare it by using the
BEGIN WORK
statement and an END/ABORT/ROLLBACK/COMMIT statement to terminate the transaction and
switch from "transaction mode" to "non-transaction mode".
The SQL92 doesn't have such statement like BEGIN WORK because when you initialize a
connection to a database you are all the time in transaction mode.
Should it be the real problem with transactions ?

>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
> peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
> http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden
>
> ************

--
Jose' Soares
Bologna, Italy                     Jose@sferacarta.com