James William Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> plpy being an untrusted language, I *ultimately* do not have control
> over this. I can only specify things within my code. I *cannot* stop a
> user from making an extension module that draws interfaces to those
> routines that may rollback to a savepoint defined by the caller.
In which case, whether it works or not is his problem not yours ;-)
This is a straw-man argument, as is the entire discussion IMHO.
Wrapping each individual SPI command in a subtransaction IN NO WAY
prevents us from adding programmer-controllable savepoint features
to the PL languages later. It simply ensures that we have somewhat
sane error recovery behavior in the meantime. The only valid argument
against doing it is the one of added overhead, and I already gave my
responses to that one.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
