Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I have added this to the TODO list, with a question mark. Hope this is
> > OK with everyone.
>
> > o Abort SET changes made in aborted transactions (?)
>
> Actually, I was planning to make only search_path act that way, because
> of all the push-back I'd gotten on applying it to other SET variables.
> search_path really *has* to have it, but if there's anyone who agrees
> with me about doing it for all SET vars, they didn't speak up :-(

Woh, this all started because of timeout, which needs this fix too. We
certainly need something and I don't want to get into on of those "we
can't all decide, so we do nothing" situations.

I have updated the TODO to:

o Abort all or commit all SET changes made in an aborted transaction

I don't think our current behavior is defended by anyone. Is abort all
or commit all the only two choices? If so, we will take a vote and be
done with it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026