On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 11:45, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> >ISTM - my summary would be
> >1. We seem to agree we should support SAVEPOINTs
> >
> >2. We seem to agree that BEGIN/COMMIT should stay unchanged...
> >
> >
> >
> >>With savepoints, it looks pretty strange:
> >>
> >>BEGIN;
> >> SAVEPOINT x1;
> >> INSERT INTO ...;
> >> SAVEPOINT x2;
> >> INSERT INTO ...;
> >> SAVEPOINT x3;
> >> INSERT INTO ...;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This isn't how you would use SAVEPOINTs...look at this...
> >
> >BEGIN
> > display one screen to user - book the flight
> > INSERT INTO ...
> > INSERT INTO ...
> > UPDATE ...
> > SAVEPOINT
> > display another related screen - book the hotel
> > INSERT INTO
> > DELETE
> > UPDATE
> > UPDATE
> > SAVEPOINT
> > offer confirmation screen
> >COMMIT (or ROLLBACK)
> >
> >
>
> No, SAVEPOINT is not some kind of intermediate commit, but a point where
> a rollback can rollback to.
Hmmm....I'm not sure what you mean by "No". The SAVEPOINT is somewhere
you can ROLLBACK to, yes - exactly what I'm saying.
I've not introduced any concept of "intermediate commit"...
Do you agree that my example is valid Oracle SQL?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
