Tom Lane wrote:
> This is fairly irrelevant though, as the state stack entry is only a
> small part of the resources consumed by an uncommitted subtransaction.
> I don't really think it outweighs the argument you quoted about
> accidental collisions of savepoint names causing problems.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the problem of name collision exists anyway,
at least to some extent.
The current behaviour will help in this case:
BEGIN;
...
SAVEPOINT a;
SELECT func();
...
COMMIT;
where func does:
SAVEPOINT a;
....
RELEASE <or> ROLLBACK TO a;
But it will not help, if func only does:
SAVEPOINT a;
on error ROLLBACK TO a; (but no release path)
Then, if an error occurs after the function call, an the programm executes
ROLLBACK TO a; it will rollback to a state that existed inside the
function... rather bad again.
And... in PL/pgSQL you will use EXCEPTION blocks rather than SAVEPOINT
directly... will there are still the other languages.
I just wanted to show that it is still not _that_ save to use colliding
savepoint names.
Regards,
Michael Paesold
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
