Re: bug w/ cursors and savepoints

On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 12:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state 
> > modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it 
> > wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE) 
> > transactional as well -- so that a CLOSE in an aborted subtransaction 
> > would not actually destroy the cursor.
> 
> Hmm ... not sure how hard that is.

Would it work to record the sub XID of the deleting subtxn on CLOSE, and
then consider whether to "really" do the deletion when the subtxn
commits/aborts?

-Neil