On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:01:32AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >And consider this case: > > > > BEGIN; > > ... > > SAVEPOINT x; > > SELECT func_call(); > > SELECT func_call(); > > COMMIT; > > > >Now if func_call has a savepoint, it is really nested because it can't > >know whether the savepoint X will be used to roll back, so its status is > >dependent on the status of X. Now, if we used savepoints in func_call, > >what happens in the second function call when we define a savepoint with > >the same name? I assume we overwrite the original, but using nested > >transaction syntax seems much clearer. > > It also seems in this example that func_call() probably shouldn't have > permission to rollback to savepoint x? Otherwise it would get...weird.
I don't think we should explicitly forbid it. I think it should be forbidden to close the outermost transaction inside a function (else the function would not be able to terminate correctly), but for levels before that one it'd be OK. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Cuando maņana llegue pelearemos segun lo que maņana exija" (Mowgli) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
