On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 23:36, Greg Stark wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> writes:
>
> > Why not rollback all or commit all?
> >
> > I really really don't like subbegin and subcommit. I get the feeling
> > they'll cause more problems we haven't foreseen yet, but I can't put my
> > finger on it.
>
> Well I've already pointed out one problem. It makes it impossible to write
> generic code or reuse existing code and embed it within a transaction. Code
> meant to be a nested transaction within a larger transaction becomes
> non-interchangeable with code meant to be run on its own.
Would a rollback N / abort N where N is the number of levels to rollback
/ abort work?