Dennis,
> The non-standard part I was talking about was the savepoints without
> names, and that is what we should support for ever if we introduce them.
I don't have a problem with that idea. Anonymous Savepoints should be easy
to support if we are supporting Named (spec) Savepoints. And the two should
even integrate easily -- a *lot* more easily than Savepoints and Nested Xacts
with a different syntax would. And, it's also a convenient shortcut for the
most common case -- transactions with 1 level of nesting and only a couple of
non-overlapping savepoints.
Of course, if Alvaro can knock out Named Savepoints in a week, then sure,
let's go for it. But I've not heard him saying he can.
However, this does bring up an important issue; if we implement anonymous
savepoints, then should the current implementation accept savepoint names and
just ignore them? If not, it makes porting and coding for the spec much
more difficult; if so, ported applications could develop subtle erroneous
behaviour through wrong rollbacks.
--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco