From: | Mike Rylander <miker(at)purplefrog(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
Date: | 2004-07-09 17:53:43 |
Message-ID: | ccmn21$2tcb$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> 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?
I'm not a core developer, but that is what it looks like.
> And when that happen, should
> we then recommend that people use the standard feature and stay away from
> the pg only feature?
Nested transactions and savepoints serve two different purposes. They have
some overlap, but for the most part solve two distinct problems.
>
> Doesn't anyone but me think is all backwards?
>
I don't think so, especially as there has been some talk of implimenting
savepoints as a subset of nested transactions.
--miker
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Brusser | 2004-07-09 17:58:14 | Failing semctl |
Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-07-09 17:10:06 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |