Re: Nested transactions

Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
> I like the functionality of nested transactions, I just think that there
> needs to be different commands other than BEGIN/COMMIT to work with
> them. So that there is no possiblity for misunderstanding what COMMIT
> really means.

There's something to be said for that view. Another thing in its favor
is that if we choose names like SUBBEGIN and SUBCOMMIT, then we get rid
of the syntax conflict with plpgsql's BEGIN/END. A function cannot
legally issue a true COMMIT, as it has to be inside an outer transaction
--- so it only needs to be able to say SUBBEGIN and SUBCOMMIT.

I'm not at all wedded to those particular names, of course. Just
thinking that it'd simplify life if they were spelled differently than
BEGIN and END.

regards, tom lane