| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dennis Bjorklund" <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Thomas Swan" <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-07 15:26:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1089213967.14278.4.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 00:16, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > We can later implement savepoints, which will have "SAVEPOINT foo" and
> > "ROLLBACK TO foo" as interface. (Note that a subtransaction is slightly
> > different from a savepoint, so we can't use ROLLBACK TO <foo> in
> > subtransactions because that has a different meaning in savepoints).
>
> What is the semantic difference?
One is in the SQL spec?
For that reason alone, we should probably eventually have the savepoint
syntax work.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2004-07-07 15:27:28 | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-07-07 13:20:02 | Re: plperl security |