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;
> SET x=2;
> SET x=3;
>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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-04-24 18:14:29|
|Subject: Re: "make report"|
|Previous:||From: Mario Weilguni||Date: 2002-04-24 17:02:49|
|Subject: Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch|