On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nonsense. Invalidating an older savepoint must invalidate everything
> after it as well. The fact that the savepoint syntax allows you to
> express conceptually-ridiculous operations (like that one) is not a
> point in its favor IMHO.
Luckily the standard was written like that!
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.
--
/Dennis Björklund