Tom Lane wrote:
> The routine's comments need a bit of work too. Otherwise it seems OK.
> Neil or anyone else --- see an issue here?
The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state
modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it
wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE)
transactional as well -- so that a CLOSE in an aborted subtransaction
would not actually destroy the cursor.
Other than that, I think there ought to be some user-level documentation
for how cursors and savepoints interact, and some regression tests for
this behavior, but I'm happy to add that myself if no one beats me to it.
-Neil
