Oliver Jowett wrote:
BEGIN
SAVEPOINT a
-- work
SAVEPOINT b
-- work
SAVEPOINT a
-- work
ROLLBACK TO b
-- work
This is valid: the standard says that the second SAVEPOINT a destroys
and recreates the savepoint a, but doesn't say that it destroys
intervening savepoints. In
Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the first example code is used (which I would use if I did not think
about postgresql's exception), the subxact state stack in xact.c will grow
and grow and grow... whereas in the case of compliance with the standard, it
will not.
This is fairly
Michael Paesold wrote:
BEGIN;
SAVEPOINT a;
INSERT INTO ...
SAVEPOINT a;
INSERT INTO ...
SAVEPOINT a;
...
(encountering an error it would just ROLLBACK TO a;)
According to the standard this is exactly the same as:
BEGIN;
SAVEPOINT a;
INSERT INTO ...
RELEASE SAVEPOINT a;
SAVEPOINT a;
INSERT INTO ...
Tom Lane wrote:
This is fairly irrelevant though, as the state stack entry is only a
small part of the resources consumed by an uncommitted subtransaction.
I don't really think it outweighs the argument you quoted about
accidental collisions of savepoint names causing problems.
Perhaps I am
