"Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes:
> I though the postgres behaviour of rolling back the whole transaction was
> standard?
Not really.
> If that is not the case, I don't understand why core seems to be
> against a mode (GUC), where an implicit savepoint is generated before each
> statement so that "rollback of the last statement" would be possible.
Because we learned our lesson with the ill-fated autocommit GUC
variable. You can't have fundamental transactional semantics depending
on the phase of the moon, but from the point of view of application
code, anything that can be flipped as easily as a GUC variable is an
unknown.
If you've been following recent -hackers discussions you will also
realize that a forced savepoint for every statement is untenable
from a performance perspective anyway.
regards, tom lane
