| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-09 17:10:06 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0407091904300.2838-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think we agreed on BEGIN NESTED/COMMIT NESTED, and START NESTED
> TRANSACTION and COMMIT NESTED TRANSACTION.
Should I read this as pg will get its own implementation of sub
transactions and not implement the almost equivalent standard (sql99)
savepoint feature?
Will we in the future see savepoints as well? And when that happen, should
we then recommend that people use the standard feature and stay away from
the pg only feature?
Doesn't anyone but me think is all backwards?
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Rylander | 2004-07-09 17:53:43 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2004-07-09 16:59:50 | Re: User Quota Implementation |