| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about savepoint level? |
| Date: | 2022-10-25 02:13:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_3vwsdnxJHTgqaK=Ce-ikeVfXsx60DwDjM+0ph5nPYdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-24, Richard Guo wrote:
> > ISTM the savepointLevel always remains the same as what is in
> > TopTransactionStateData after looking at the codes. Now I also get
> > confused. Maybe what we want is nestingLevel?
>
> This has already been discussed:
> https://postgr.es/m/1317297307-sup-7945@alvh.no-ip.org
> Now that we have transaction-controlling procedures, I think the next
> step is to add the SQL-standard feature that allows savepoint level
> control for them, which would make the savepointLevel no longer dead
> code.
Now I see the context. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2022-10-25 02:15:18 | Re: Some comments that should've covered MERGE |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2022-10-25 02:05:10 | Re: fixing typo in comment for restriction_is_or_clause |