On 1/22/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> I don't understand this either. Everything you can do with nested
> transactions you can also do with savepoints, so I'm really not
> understand what the limitations are?
>
> Actually, looking at the savepoint documentation, it looks like there
> is no way to say:
>
> if transaction_state ok then
> release X
> else
> rollback to X
exactly.
> Which is what a normal COMMIT does (sort of). This is very irritating
> for scripting, so maybe a "COMMIT TO X" command would be auseful
> addition?
right. thats exactly what I want (more or less, there are a couple of
different ways to do it, but this is perfectly acceptable). The on
errors bit was just a froofy addition that distracted from the core
problem.
merlin
