Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-29 15:33:36
Message-ID: 200204291533.g3TFXas03874@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its 
> > environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should 
> > be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found 
> > it.  If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
> done outside transaction.
> 
> If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
> transaction. 
> 
> Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
> really confuse the user.

Agreed, very non-intuitive.  And can you imagine how many applications
we would break.

-- 
  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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-04-29 15:44:26
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-04-29 15:30:35
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group