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.
Yes, weird. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
