Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All

Dennis Bjorklund wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
>> I think we agreed on BEGIN NESTED/COMMIT NESTED, and START NESTED
>> TRANSACTION and COMMIT NESTED TRANSACTION.
> 
> Should I read this as pg will get its own implementation of sub
> transactions and not implement the almost equivalent standard (sql99)
> savepoint feature?
> 
> Will we in the future see savepoints as well?

I'm not a core developer, but that is what it looks like.

> And when that happen, should 
> we then recommend that people use the standard feature and stay away from
> the pg only feature?

Nested transactions and savepoints serve two different purposes.  They have
some overlap, but for the most part solve two distinct problems.

> 
> Doesn't anyone but me think is all backwards?
> 

I don't think so, especially as there has been some talk of implimenting
savepoints as a subset of nested transactions.

--miker