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 66CFE3A3C22 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:23:57 +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 84004-10 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:23:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BEC23A1D95 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:23:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 24538 invoked by uid 65534); 10 Nov 2004 15:23:52 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-234-251.arcor-ip.net (EHLO colt.pezone.net) (82.82.234.251) by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 16:23:52 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 From: Peter Eisentraut To: Achilleus Mantzios , Michael Fuhr Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible? Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:23:50 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Cc: "Riccardo G. Facchini" , , Theodore Petrosky , Andrei Bintintan , sad References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411101623.50254.peter_e@gmx.net> 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: 200411/104 X-Sequence-Number: 19423 Achilleus Mantzios wrote: > Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback > blocks? Possibly. But that consideration would have been more relevant about 6 years ago when they wrote the SAVEPOINT syntax into the SQL standard. :) -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/