Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > 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.
>
> Hiroshi seems to like it ...
>
> However, "commit SETs even after an error" is most certainly NOT
> acceptable. It's not even sensible --- what if the SETs themselves
> throw errors, or are depending on the results of failed non-SET
> commands; will you try to commit them anyway?
>
> It seems to me that the choices we realistically have are
>
> (a) leave the behavior the way it is
>
> (b) cause all SETs in an aborted transaction to roll back.

I disagree. You commit all the SET's you can, even if in aborted
transactions. If they throw an error, or rely on a previous non-SET
that aborted, oh well. That is what some are asking for.

--
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