Re: bug w/ cursors and savepoints

Tom Lane wrote:
> The routine's comments need a bit of work too.  Otherwise it seems OK.
> Neil or anyone else --- see an issue here?

The policy will now be: cursor creation is transaction, but cursor state 
modifications (FETCH) are non-transactional -- right? I wonder if it 
wouldn't be more consistent to make cursor deletion (CLOSE) 
transactional as well -- so that a CLOSE in an aborted subtransaction 
would not actually destroy the cursor.

Other than that, I think there ought to be some user-level documentation 
for how cursors and savepoints interact, and some regression tests for 
this behavior, but I'm happy to add that myself if no one beats me to it.

-Neil