Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bradley McLean <brad(at)bradm(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-23 16:46:43
Message-ID: 200204231646.g3NGkhh13132@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bradley McLean wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us) [020423 12:30]:
> >
> > 1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
> > 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
> > 3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
> > ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
> >
> > Our current behavior is 2.
> >
> > Please vote and I will tally the results.
>
> #2, no change in behavior.
>
> But I base that on the assumption that #1 or #3 involve serious amounts
> of work, and don't see the big benefit.

I don't want to make any big comments during the vote, but I should
mention that #1 is needed by Tom's SET for namespace path, and #1 or #3
is needed to clearly handle query timeouts.

Just thought I would refresh people's memory on how this discussion got
started.

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-23 16:51:38 Re: [HACKERS] build of 7.2.1 on SCO Openserver and Unixware
Previous Message Bradley McLean 2002-04-23 16:43:03 Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction