Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

> If there was no official vote, the conclusion came from the discussion
> that almost everyone wanted subtransactions without UNDO.
>
> I don't want to rehash it.  If you want a vote, let's vote.
> 
> Who wants subtransactions with UNDO and who wants it with a separate
> transaction id for every subtransaction?

Don't mess up things, Bruce - UNDO is not for subtransactions only!
UNDO would allow immediate storage cleanup and vacuum would
not be required anymore. Subtransactions/savepoints would be just
"by-effect" of UNDO. (And, btw, how would you implement "implicit"
savepoints with "separate subtrans id" approach?)

But do we need any voting, actually? Is there anybody who want/ready
implement UNDO functionality? No? Then there is nothing to vote about.
(Though I personally consider "subtrans id-s" as "messing up messy
transaction system". Messing up is always easier then re-designing).

Vadim