Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

Dennis,

> The non-standard part I was talking about was the savepoints without
> names, and that is what we should support for ever if we introduce them. 

I don't have a problem with that idea.    Anonymous Savepoints should be easy 
to support if we are supporting Named (spec) Savepoints.  And the two should 
even integrate easily -- a *lot* more easily than Savepoints and Nested Xacts 
with a different syntax would.   And, it's also a convenient shortcut for the 
most common case -- transactions with 1 level of nesting and only a couple of 
non-overlapping savepoints.

Of course, if Alvaro can knock out Named Savepoints in a week, then sure, 
let's go for it.  But I've not heard him saying he can.

However, this does bring up an important issue; if we implement anonymous 
savepoints, then should the current implementation accept savepoint names and 
just ignore them?    If not, it makes porting and coding for the spec much 
more difficult; if so, ported applications could develop subtle erroneous 
behaviour through wrong rollbacks.

-- 
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco