Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

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!

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #