| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | josh(at)bitbuckets(dot)com, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sixth Draft |
| Date: | 2004-09-01 19:35:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20040901193501.GB7128@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:18PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Stupid question, and it may be just a terminalogy difference, but is there
> a reason why we are focusing on just SavePoints, and not the whole Nested
> Transactions thing? Or are they considered "same thing, different name"?
Yes, "savepoints" is the feature name. It also is a SQL feature, which
nested transactions were not. Luckily, the SQL feature gives at least
the same functionality as nested transactions, so we are not losing
anything by not using the old name.
Originally we thought that savepoints did not offer all that we wanted
to do, but careful spec examination proved us wrong. Which is a good
thing IMHO.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"We are who we choose to be", sang the goldfinch
when the sun is high (Sandman)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-09-01 20:54:42 | Re: Sixth Draft |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-09-01 19:30:15 | Re: Sixth Draft |