Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

True.  I see no reason to disallow it.  Alvaro, you mentioned savepoint
levels, and I assume this to work around cases where they would need
the nested transactions that we are implementing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to