> > They don't necessarily have nested tx, although some have.
> > All they provide is atomicity of single statements.
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> it's a duck no matter what it's called. How would you
> provide atomicity
> of a single statement without a transaction-equivalent implementation?
> That statement might be affecting many tuples in several different
> tables. It's not noticeably easier to roll back one statement than
> a whole sequence of them.
Yes, the only difference seems to be, that the changes need not
be sync'd to disk, and you only need one level of nesting as long
as the user is not presented the ability to use nested tx.
Andreas
