On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 22:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Benoit <ipso(at)snappymail(dot)ca> writes:
> > On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:38 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> If we change the syntax, say by using SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT for
> >> subtransactions, then using a simple ABORT would abort the whole
> >> transaction tree.
> > But then we're back to the application having to know if its in a
> > regular transaction or a sub-transaction aren't we? To me that sounds
> > just as bad.
> Someone (I forget who at this late hour) gave several cogent arguments
> that that's *exactly* what we want. Please see the prior discussion...
> Right at the moment I think we have a consensus that we should use
> SUBBEGIN/SUBEND or some such keywords for subtransactions. (I do not
> say we've agreed to exactly those keywords, only that it's a good idea
> to make them different from the outer-level BEGIN/END keywords.)
> There was also some talk of offering commands based around the notion of
> savepoints, but I'm not sure that we have a consensus on that yet.
Aren't subtransactions and their syntax defined by the SQL spec
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-07-02 04:36:50|
|Subject: Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler|
|Previous:||From: joseph speigle||Date: 2004-07-02 04:20:34|
|Subject: Re: demande d'aide|