Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:01:32AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >And consider this case:
> > >
> > > BEGIN;
> > > ...
> > > SAVEPOINT x;
> > > SELECT func_call();
> > > SELECT func_call();
> > > COMMIT;
> > >
> > >Now if func_call has a savepoint, it is really nested because it can't
> > >know whether the savepoint X will be used to roll back, so its status is
> > >dependent on the status of X. Now, if we used savepoints in func_call,
> > >what happens in the second function call when we define a savepoint with
> > >the same name? I assume we overwrite the original, but using nested
> > >transaction syntax seems much clearer.
> >
> > It also seems in this example that func_call() probably shouldn't have
> > permission to rollback to savepoint x? Otherwise it would get...weird.
>
> I don't think we should explicitly forbid it. I think it should be
> forbidden to close the outermost transaction inside a function (else the
> function would not be able to terminate correctly), but for levels
> before that one it'd be OK.
True. I see no reason to disallow it. Alvaro, you mentioned savepoint
levels, and I assume this to work around cases where they would need
the nested transactions that we are implementing.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
