On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:32:06PM +0200, Marti Raudsepp wrote: > Maybe that's just my paranoia, but the fact that subtransactions > aren't named means it's pretty easy to accidentally get "out of step" > and commit the wrong subtransaction. I see app developers often > messing up BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK already. This is why I like the > SAVEPOINT style; it's obvious when there's a bug.
For each COMMIT/ROLLBACK there is only one possible BEGIN SUBTRANSACTION, therefore naming is not strictly necessary, unlike in the SAVEPOINT case where you can have more than one option. However, ISTM that allowing to optionally name each transaction could provide a nice safety measure that the careful developer can use to reduce the chances of human error. If subtransactions are not named, no check is made; but if they are named, then the Xs on BEGIN SUBTRANSACTION X and COMMIT/ROLLBACK SUBTRANSACTION X must match, otherwise an exception is raised (and a bug is detected). Regards, Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it | www.2ndquadrant.it -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
