X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D414B9FA5F3 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:53:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75419-03 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:52:56 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.181]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D0C9FACFE for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:52:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b36so408922pyb for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nkg4fOL4WiV//m31TvBmsOME8pTkNkXuBrwAvhwmGFrrfmzPIkOs+BeWhFEEs3xJA41YCkZVfyxZXyGAu8uBDmyuF/JhpzERi4bF7mQXge9iAfamKvgZucswgKEtzfLgdbW1cKXkKgjfxIloaUodRGYtfe0CgzQmyvaL/5/oqLQ= Received: by 10.35.100.6 with SMTP id c6mr13828671pym; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.54.5 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:52:24 -0500 From: "Jaime Casanova" To: "Mark Lewis" Subject: Re: Savepoint performance Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1154020755.1634.509.camel@archimedes> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1154020755.1634.509.camel@archimedes> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.327 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200607/251 X-Sequence-Number: 20111 On 7/27/06, Mark Lewis wrote: > All, > > I support a system that runs on several databases including PostgreSQL. > I've noticed that the other DB's always put an implicit savepoint before > each statement executed, and roll back to that savepoint if the > statement fails for some reason. PG does not, so unless you manually > specify a savepoint you lose all previous work in the transaction. > you're talking about transactions not savepoints (savepoints is something more like nested transactions), i guess... postgres execute every single statement inside an implicit transaction unless you put BEGIN/COMMIT between a block of statements... in that case if an error occurs the entire block of statements must ROLLBACK... if other db's doesn't do that, is a bug in their implementation of the SQL standard -- regards, Jaime Casanova "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." Richard Cook