Dennis, > The non-standard part I was talking about was the savepoints without > names, and that is what we should support for ever if we introduce them.
I don't have a problem with that idea. Anonymous Savepoints should be easy to support if we are supporting Named (spec) Savepoints. And the two should even integrate easily -- a *lot* more easily than Savepoints and Nested Xacts with a different syntax would. And, it's also a convenient shortcut for the most common case -- transactions with 1 level of nesting and only a couple of non-overlapping savepoints. Of course, if Alvaro can knock out Named Savepoints in a week, then sure, let's go for it. But I've not heard him saying he can. However, this does bring up an important issue; if we implement anonymous savepoints, then should the current implementation accept savepoint names and just ignore them? If not, it makes porting and coding for the spec much more difficult; if so, ported applications could develop subtle erroneous behaviour through wrong rollbacks. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
