Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> I think we agreed on BEGIN NESTED/COMMIT NESTED, and START NESTED
>> TRANSACTION and COMMIT NESTED TRANSACTION.
>
> Should I read this as pg will get its own implementation of sub
> transactions and not implement the almost equivalent standard (sql99)
> savepoint feature?
>
> Will we in the future see savepoints as well?
I'm not a core developer, but that is what it looks like.
> And when that happen, should
> we then recommend that people use the standard feature and stay away from
> the pg only feature?
Nested transactions and savepoints serve two different purposes. They have
some overlap, but for the most part solve two distinct problems.
>
> Doesn't anyone but me think is all backwards?
>
I don't think so, especially as there has been some talk of implimenting
savepoints as a subset of nested transactions.
--miker
---------------------------(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
