> Looking at the latest patch, the comment blocks on top of TBLOCK_STARTED
> and TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS in EndTransactionBlock() need an update
> to mention the difference of behavior with chained transactions. And
> the same comment rework should be done in UserAbortTransactionBlock()
> for TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS/TBLOCK_STARTED?
I made another patch for that.
I don't have much confidence with my English spelling so further improvements may be needed.
> If it is too much a change and potential regression, then I think that the
> "and chain" variants should be consistent and just raise warnings.
We don't have an exact answer for implicit transaction chaining behavior yet.
So I think it's better to disable this feature until someone discovers the use cases for this.
Permitting AND CHAIN without a detailed specification might cause troubles in future.
