Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > > Vadim planned to implement the savepoints functionality
> > > > > > using UNDO mechanism. AFAIR it was never denied explicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you go to the TODO.detail/transactions archive, there was discussion
> > > > > of using UNDO, and most felt that there were too many problems of having
> > > > > to manage the undo system,
> > > >
> > > > This is closely related to the basics of PostgreSQL.
> > > > Pleas don't decide it implicitly.
> > >
> > > We took a vote and UNDO lost --- do you want to do another vote?
> >
> > Sorry I missed the vote. Where is it ?
> 
> I can't find the vote in the archive.  As I remember, Vadim and a few
> others liked UNDO, while more liked the current approach.

As far as I remember there was no such vote or decision.
Note that I'm not particularly on UNDO side but I don't
think that the currently discussed way is much better
than UNDO. Please make the advantage/disadvantages clear
and let me understand the meaning of this thread.

regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/