Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, "Riccardo G(dot) Facchini" <abief_ag_-postgresql(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Andrei Bintintan <klodoma(at)ar-sd(dot)net>, sad <sad(at)bankir(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?
Date: 2004-11-10 17:28:17
Message-ID: 13824.1100107697@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> writes:
> Just a very naive thought....
> Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks?

We actually had it working that way initially, but changed to the
spec-defined behavior, because (a) it wasn't standard, and (b) it
was confusing. See the pghackers archives.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Goutam Paruchuri 2004-11-10 18:11:27 Re: Error In connection ??
Previous Message David B 2004-11-10 17:19:42 Unicode problem inserting records - Invalid UNICODE character sequence found (0xfc7269)