
> > Yes, the only difference seems to be, that the changes need not 
> > be sync'd to disk, and you only need one level of nesting as long
> > as the user is not presented the ability to use nested tx.
> >
> 
> Hmm,what do you want now ?

I basically just wanted to say yes, but stated some differences that are
minor
and can be ignored.

> 
> Note that (f)sync is irrelevant at all.
> Partial rollback is the problem of only the backend to be rollbacked
> except locking.
> 
> Vadim has already planned savepoints functionality instead of nested
> tx. I have never heard objections to the proposal.

I think this is the same as nested tx, at least that is my understanding.

> I could see little difference between the implementation of rollback
> to arbitrary savepoints and the implemention of rollback only to the
> savepoint implicitly placed immediately before current statement. 
> 
> Do you want another hack ?

No.

Andreas

Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:01:58 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS 