On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 06:22:00PM +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On the other hand, it's not hard to implement the other behaviour either
> if that is what one wants (and we don't). It would only forget the name of
> the earlier savepoint. The corresponding transaction in itself have to
> stay.
That's why it's absurd. Why allow an operation which isn't really an
operation?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"God is real, unless declared as int"