But it doesn't. It says they had sub-transactions, not what caused them. Nothing in the article gives concrete details on specific code or logic that was contr

But it doesn't. It says they had sub-transactions, not what caused them. Nothing in the article gives concrete details on specific code or logic that was contributing to the issue. The entire "Why would you use a SAVEPOINT?" should have been replaced with "Why we were using SAVEPOINT". Personally, I was hoping for the post to dig into a specific example and explain why transactions were used in the first place (justification) or why removing transactions or sub-transactions had no negative impact on data integrity.