Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> It'd be good to have savepoints right now. I'm not sure it'd be good to
> expose the nested transactions implementation if we are going to offer
> savepoints later, because it means we will have to keep nested
> transactions forever.
Nested transactions are *good*. We should not hide them.
I don't object to offering spec-compatible savepoints, but the plain
fact of the matter is that that's a dumbed-down API. We should not
feel constrained to offer only that.
regards, tom lane
