Received: from id.godlike.com (id.godlike.com [206.205.199.129])
	by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10479;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:37:14 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from taral@cyberjunkie.com)
Received: from taral ([208.247.20.138])
	by id.godlike.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20468;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:36:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "Taral" <taral@cyberjunkie.com>
To: "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@trust.ee>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@hub.org>, <pgsql-interfaces@hub.org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] PREPARE
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:36:55 -0600
Message-ID: <000f01be1259$40542c00$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <000d01be1257$bccf27a0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>

> > Is the current transaction model adequate or do we need nested
> > transactions ?
>
> Err... I didn't answer your question, did I? The COS Transaction Service
> implements nested transactions.

Aha... finally found the line I was looking for:

"An implementation of the Transaction Service is not required to support
nested transactions."

Taral