Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
O Michael Fuhr έγραψε στις Nov 10, 2004 :
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:45:19AM -0800, Riccardo G. Facchini wrote:
Sorry, but I understand that your example is not really about nested
transactions, but about sequential transactions.
Here's a more elaborate example. If this doesn't demonstrate the
capability you're looking for, then please provide an example of
what you'd like to do and describe the desired behavior.
CREATE TABLE person (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT NOT NULL);
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('Alice');
SAVEPOINT s1;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('Bob');
SAVEPOINT s2;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('Charles');
SAVEPOINT s3;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('David');
ROLLBACK TO s3;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('Edward');
ROLLBACK TO s2;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('Frank');
RELEASE s1;
INSERT INTO person (name) VALUES ('George');
COMMIT;
Just a very naive thought....
Wouldn't make more sense to allow nested begin/commit/rollback blocks?
Is not naive because in this way you can do what you could do with
nested begin/commit/rollback blocks, in this way you can do more.
Think for example in the example above to convert the "ROLLBACK TO s3"
in a "ROLLBACK TO s1", that is impossible to do with begin/commit/rollback
blocks.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
