| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-10 22:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200407101555.31660.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce,
> It seems anonymous savepoints really don't buy us anything. They don't
> match the Oracle behavior, and don't do anything more than nested
> transactions. I agree we want them, but I don't see the value they add
> value right now.
Anonymous Savepoints == Nested Transactions
This issue is whether we're going to use a PostgreSQL-specific, non-standard,
syntax for NTs, or use a syntax that puts us on the road to implementing
spec-compliant savepoints.
Given that the functionality is exactly the same in either case, I don't see
why you would want to implement syntax which is 100% Postgres-specific.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-10 23:29:35 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-10 22:15:13 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |