Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

Scott Marlowe wrote:

>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?
>
>
>
Only, if you know the number of levels you are deep in the transaction.

"ROLLBACK n" and "ROLLBACK ALL" together would be good alternatives to
unwind nested transaction. Perhaps a function for
pg_transaction_nested_level( ) or a pg_transaction_nested_level variable
could help in this.

Again, these are just opinions.