Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?

From: Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
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 16:01:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0411101756450.7535-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

O Peter Eisentraut έγραψε στις Nov 10, 2004 :

> Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
> > Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback
> > blocks?
>
> Possibly. But that consideration would have been more relevant about 6
> years ago when they wrote the SAVEPOINT syntax into the SQL standard.
> :)

In other words, now with savepoints, BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK;
can be replaced with
SAVEPOINT foo; RELEASE foo; ROLLBACK TO foo; respectively.

If only transactions weren't a requirement for SAVEPOINTs,
what would we then need BEGIN; COMMIT; ROLLBACK; for?

>
>

--
-Achilleus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-11-10 16:09:48 Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-11-10 15:23:50 Re: A transaction in transaction? Possible?