Re: SAVEPOINT SQL conformance

"Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
> If the first example code is used (which I would use if I did not think
> about postgresql's exception), the subxact state stack in xact.c will grow
> and grow and grow... whereas in the case of compliance with the standard, it
> will not.

This is fairly irrelevant though, as the state stack entry is only a
small part of the resources consumed by an uncommitted subtransaction.
I don't really think it outweighs the argument you quoted about
accidental collisions of savepoint names causing problems.

On the other hand, we do have provisions in the code for savepoint
naming levels, and so maybe a better answer to the collision issue
is to support savepoint levels more completely. (But that's not
standard either.)

regards, tom lane