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

Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-24 17:33:19
Message-ID: 3CC6EC5F.8080906@wgops.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Vote number 1 -- ROLL BACK

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
>transaction?  This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
>forward if needed.
>
>In the case of:
>
>	SET x=1;
>	BEGIN;
>	SET x=2;
>	query_that_aborts_transaction;
>	SET x=3;
>	COMMIT;
>
>at the end, should 'x' equal:
>	
>	1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
>	2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
>	3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
>	? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
>
>Our current behavior is 2.
>
>Please vote and I will tally the results.
>



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-04-24 18:14:29
Subject: Re: "make report"
Previous:From: Mario WeilguniDate: 2002-04-24 17:02:49
Subject: Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch

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