On 26/05/10 02:00, Sam Vilain wrote:
Florian Pflug wrote:
On May 25, 2010, at 12:18 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Releasing the newer savepoint will cause the older one to again become
accessible, as the doc says, but rolling back to a savepoint does not
implicitly release it. You'll have to use RELEASE SAVEPOINT for that.
Ah, now I get it. Thanks.
Would changing "Releasing the newer savepoint will cause ... " to "Explicitly releasing the
newer savepoint" or maybe even "Explicitly releasing the newer savepoint with RELEASE SAVEPOINT
will cause ..." make things clearer?
Yes, probably - your misreading matches my misreading of it :-)
+1.
There is another way you can get there - releasing to a savepoint before
the re-used savepoint name will also release the savepoints after it.
ie
savepoint foo;
savepoint bar;
savepoint foo;
release to savepoint bar;
release to savepoint foo;
After the first release, the second 'foo' savepoint is gone. I think
this is a key advantage in saving the old savepoints.
Yep. Do we need to mention that in that notice? I don't think so, it
would become really verbose. Florian's wording above seems fine.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
