On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:01:32AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >And consider this case:
> >
> >     BEGIN;
> >     ...
> >     SAVEPOINT x;
> >     SELECT func_call();
> >     SELECT func_call();
> >     COMMIT;
> >
> >Now if func_call has a savepoint, it is really nested because it can't
> >know whether the savepoint X will be used to roll back, so its status is
> >dependent on the status of X.  Now, if we used savepoints in func_call,
> >what happens in the second function call when we define a savepoint with
> >the same name?  I assume we overwrite the original, but using nested
> >transaction syntax seems much clearer.  
> It also seems in this example that func_call() probably shouldn't have 
> permission to rollback to savepoint x?  Otherwise it would get...weird.

I don't think we should explicitly forbid it.  I think it should be
forbidden to close the outermost transaction inside a function (else the
function would not be able to terminate correctly), but for levels
before that one it'd be OK.

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Cuando maņana llegue pelearemos segun lo que maņana exija" (Mowgli)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to