Tom Lane wrote:
> Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> writes:
> > Coz some things should not be rolled back. So you guys might come up with a
> > different keyword for it.
> > CONFIG: for non transactional stuff that can appear as SQL statements.
> > SET: for stuff that can be transactional.
> People keep suggesting this, and I keep asking for a concrete example
> where non-rollback is needed, and I keep not getting one. I can't see
> the value of investing work in creating an alternative behavior when
> we have no solid example to justify it.
> The "Oracle compatibility" argument would have some weight if we were
> making any concerted effort to be Oracle-compatible across the board;
> but I have not detected any enthusiasm for that. Given that it's not
> even the same syntax ("SET ..." vs "ALTER SESSION ...") I'm not sure
> why an Oracle user would expect it to behave exactly the same.
Agreed. OK, let me summarize.
We had a vote that was overwhemingly #1. Marc made a good point that we
should see how other databases behave, and we now know that Oracle and
Ingres do #3 (honor all SETs in an aborted transaction). Does anyone
want to change their vote from #1 to #3.
Second, there is the idea of doing #1, and having a GUC variable for #3.
Does anyone want that? I think Marc may. Anyone else?
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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-26 14:50:32|
|Subject: Re: pg_constraint |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-26 14:46:27|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction|