On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 08:21:20PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Oh, is that all it does? That's disappointing, because that's a lot less
> powerful than how I understand chained transactions. And at the same time
> relieving, because that's a lot simpler to implement :-).
>
> In Gray & Reuter's classic book, Transaction Processing, they describe
> chained transactions so that you also keep locks and cursors. Unfortunately
> I don't have a copy at hand, but that's my recollection, at least. I guess
> the SQL standard committee had a different idea.
The patch set does not apply anymore, so this patch is moved to next CF,
waiting on author.
--
Michael