Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

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.)
>
>
>
Either approach still needs some mechanism to clear the current stack of
transactions and subtransactions. That's why I was thinking ABORT ALL
and ROLLBACK ALL would be sufficient to cover that and be clear enough
to the user/programmer.

>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.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>