From: Achilleus Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
Cc: Riccardo G. Facchini <abief_ag_-postgresql@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com>
Cc: Andrei Bintintan <klodoma@ar-sd.net>
Cc: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:01:36 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411101756450.7535-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200411101623.50254.peter_e@gmx.net>
O Peter Eisentraut Ýãñáøå óôéò Nov 10, 2004 :
> 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.
> :)
In other words, now with savepoints, BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK;
can be replaced with
SAVEPOINT foo; RELEASE foo; ROLLBACK TO foo; respectively.
If only transactions weren't a requirement for SAVEPOINTs,
what would we then need BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK; for?
>
>
--
-Achilleus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com, peter_e@gmx.net, mike@fuhr.org, abief_ag_-postgresql@yahoo.com, tedpet5@yahoo.com, klodoma@ar-sd.net, sad@bankir.ru
Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411101756450.7535-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox