On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:47:54AM -0600, Arthur Ward wrote:
> >> While we're at it, what about temporary functions?
> ...
> > Whether it's worth the trouble is another question. What's the
> > use-case?
>
> ...
>
> I don't find lack of temporary functions to be a hindrance. Perhaps it's a
> nice double-check for cleaning up when something goes wrong, but in that
> case, I'm likely to want things left behind for debugging, but the
> function creation is probably going to be rolled back anyhow.
<Light goes on> Of course, all in one transaction. VIEW deleted on rollback
anyway.
You're right, rollback applies to anything, so this is not a really big
deal.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers
> anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes
> 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce
