Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > The current way is ok for me at the moment. I still think there is a better
> > way (parsing statements like it's already done for
> > no-transaction-allowed-statements), but hey, as soon as your patch will be
> > applied, I can myself propose another patch to improve this. ;-)
>
> Parsing the statment will not help: even if the statement is a savepoint, we
> need to wrap it in case we need to roll it back. The only other option I
> can see to my patch is to, upon a successful user savepoint creation,
> roll back their savepoint and immediately reissue it. That seems worse to
> me than having N*2 savepoints though.
Agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073