Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> > > >
> > > > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> > >
> > > Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> > > access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it? Is
> > > Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that? *Adding* something
> > > (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> > > but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...
> >
> > Yes, let's find out what the others do. I don't see DROP TABLE
> > rollbacking as totally different. How is it different from SET?
>
> Man, you should know that our transactions are truly all or
> nothing. If you discard a transaction, the stamps xmin and
> xmax are ignored. This is a fundamental feature of Postgres,
> and if you're half through a utility command when you ERROR
> out, it guarantees consistency of the catalog. And now you
> want us to violate this concept for compatibility to Oracle's
> misbehaviour? No, thanks!

How does SET relate to xmin/xmax? :)