Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS

Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> I find this hard to believe, and even harder to believe that it's
>> mandated by the standard. What you're essentially claiming is that
>> everyone but us has nested transactions

> They don't necessarily have nested tx, although some have.
> All they provide is atomicity of single statements.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck no matter what it's called. How would you provide atomicity
of a single statement without a transaction-equivalent implementation?
That statement might be affecting many tuples in several different
tables. It's not noticeably easier to roll back one statement than
a whole sequence of them.

regards, tom lane