Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Mike Rylander wrote:
>> Nested transactions and savepoints serve two different purposes. They have
>> some overlap, but for the most part solve two distinct problems.

> Then show some examples that illustrait the difference. So far all
> examples shown that uses subtransactions could just as well have been
> written using savepoints.

And vice versa. It's a matter of convenience of notation, and I tend
to agree with Mike's comment that each wins in some cases.

> Savepoints have more possibilities, you can invalidate older savepoints
> then the last

Nonsense. Invalidating an older savepoint must invalidate everything
after it as well. The fact that the savepoint syntax allows you to
express conceptually-ridiculous operations (like that one) is not a
point in its favor IMHO.

regards, tom lane