From: Taral <taral@cyberjunkie.com>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@trust.ee>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@hub.org
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@hub.org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:36:55 -0600
Message-ID: <000f01be1259$40542c00$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000d01be1257$bccf27a0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>
> > Is the current transaction model adequate or do we need nested
> > transactions ?
>
> Err... I didn't answer your question, did I? The COS Transaction Service
> implements nested transactions.
Aha... finally found the line I was looking for:
"An implementation of the Transaction Service is not required to support
nested transactions."
Taral
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: taral@cyberjunkie.com, hannu@trust.ee, pgsql-hackers@hub.org, pgsql-interfaces@hub.org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE
In-Reply-To: <000f01be1259$40542c00$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox