X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939A23A424D for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:29:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32701-08 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:28:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A88E3A4235 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:28:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iAAHSHXU013825; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:28:17 -0500 (EST) To: Achilleus Mantzios Cc: Michael Fuhr , "Riccardo G. Facchini" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Theodore Petrosky , Andrei Bintintan , sad Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible? In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Achilleus Mantzios message dated "Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:58:27 +0200" Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:28:17 -0500 Message-ID: <13824.1100107697@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/110 X-Sequence-Number: 19429 Achilleus Mantzios writes: > Just a very naive thought.... > Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks? We actually had it working that way initially, but changed to the spec-defined behavior, because (a) it wasn't standard, and (b) it was confusing. See the pghackers archives. regards, tom lane