On 7/10/2004 6:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
>> It seems anonymous savepoints really don't buy us anything. They don't
>> match the Oracle behavior, and don't do anything more than nested
>> transactions. I agree we want them, but I don't see the value they add
>> value right now.
>
> Anonymous Savepoints == Nested Transactions
Almost
>
> This issue is whether we're going to use a PostgreSQL-specific, non-standard,
> syntax for NTs, or use a syntax that puts us on the road to implementing
> spec-compliant savepoints.
>
> Given that the functionality is exactly the same in either case, I don't see
> why you would want to implement syntax which is 100% Postgres-specific.
>
I don't think they are 100% the same. The SQL3 spec defines in 7.15 and
13.4 that each sql procedure statement and each subquery on close
implicitly destroy all savepoints that have been created during that
statement or subquery.
I am however certain that nested transactions do not offer any
additional functionality that would not be available through savepoints.
So what I am missing is the reason why we would want a non-standard
syntax at all. Especially using the keyword BEGIN in the syntax would
strike me as dumb, because it will create a parsing and reading
nightmare for PL/pgSQL, since that language uses BEGIN ... END; for
grouping statements like C uses curly braces.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
