On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 08:03:36PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 16:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So this is another reason why we should use COMMIT to close a nested
> > transaction: it may refer to a transaction that is already closed
> > because the user got confused.
Sorry! I wanted to say that we SHOULDN'T use "commit" to close a nested
transaction. Rather we want to use a different command just so the
confusion does not close the outer transaction, which would not be what
the user wanted to do.
> Could we put two modes of operation in?
> i.e. if you use SAVEPOINTs/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT, then you're not
> allowed to use nested transactions (and vice versa - so they are
> mutually exclusive)...
This may be a good idea.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Always assume the user will do much worse than the stupidest thing
you can imagine." (Julien PUYDT)