If you want the model where if any updates fail, all should be rolled
back, then you don't need nested transactions, just multiple aborts:
begin;
update d; if error abort;
update c; if error abort;
...
commit;
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andreas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> will I need "nested transactions" which - as I read - aren't
> implemented, yet ?
>
> I have some objects that rely on each other.
> Each has a status like proposal, working, canceled.
>
> table-A <--- table-B <--- table-C <--- table-D
>
> Those are (1, OO) relationships,
> A status change above gets cascaded down but not upwards.
> If I try to cancel a table-A-record every "lower" record in B, C, D
> should be canceled, too, when the transaction is committed.
> Since it is possible, that I cancel e.g. a table B object only its
> children should get updated but not table-A.
>
> I thought somthing along this to cancel a type B object:
>
> BEGIN
> BEGIN
> BEGIN
> UPDATE table-D
> END
> if no error UPDATE table-C
> END
> if no error UPDATE table-B
> END
>
> Does this make sense and will it provide the necesary protection ?
>
> BTW the client is Access 2000 via ODBC talking to an PostgreSQL 7.4.2 on
> Linux.
>
>
> Regards
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
