From: Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>
To: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah@trade-india.com>
Cc: Holger Jakobs <holger@jakobs.com>
Cc: sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: transaction processing after error in statement
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:45:05 -0500
Message-ID: <1068493505.25089.48.camel@jester> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FB1366E.9030805@trade-india.com>
References: <200311101237.hAACbuJ12784@bg.bib.de>
<1068490585.25089.7.camel@jester>
<3FB1366E.9030805@trade-india.com>
> Although i am not aware of the roots of this discussion but would like
> to
> comment at this point .
>
> When we work with sequences an aborted transaction does have
> a permanent effect on the last value of sequence. Is this behaviour
> not a violation of above defination of transaction ?
I believe you are correct, which is probably why Oracle offers
serialized sequences for those who want them to be. Sequences have been
explicitly documented as functioning the way they do as a concession for
performance.
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: pg@rbt.ca, mallah@trade-india.com, holger@jakobs.com, sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com
Subject: Re: transaction processing after error in statement
In-Reply-To: <1068493505.25089.48.camel@jester>
* 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