Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dennis Bjorklund
Subject Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0407091904300.2838-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think we agreed on BEGIN NESTED/COMMIT NESTED, and START NESTED
> TRANSACTION and COMMIT NESTED TRANSACTION.

Should I read this as pg will get its own implementation of sub
transactions and not implement the almost equivalent standard (sql99)
savepoint feature?

Will we in the future see savepoints as well? And when that happen, should
we then recommend that people use the standard feature and stay away from
the pg only feature?

Doesn't anyone but me think is all backwards?

-- 
/Dennis Björklund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: User Quota Implementation
Next
From: Michael Brusser
Date:
Subject: Failing semctl