Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:01:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Achilleus Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>,
	"Riccardo G. Facchini" <abief_ag_-postgresql@yahoo.com>,
	<pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>, Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com>,
	Andrei Bintintan <klodoma@ar-sd.net>, sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?
In-Reply-To: <200411101623.50254.peter_e@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411101756450.7535-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

O Peter Eisentraut έγραψε στις 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