| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, 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 18:52:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20020429155155.C15173-100000@mail1.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > What happens inside of a nested transaction, assuming we do have those
> > evenually ... ?
>
> Folks,
>
> I don't really get it. We had a voting and I think I saw a
> clear enough result with #1, transactional behaviour, as the
> winner. Maybe I missed something, but what's this
> disscussion about?
This discussion is about a #4 option that nobody considered ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 19:43:30 | Syscache/relcache invalidation event callbacks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 18:49:27 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |