Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I voted not only ? but also 2 and 3.
> > > > > > And haven't I asked twice or so if it's a vote ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is a vote, and now that we see how everyone feels, we can
> > > > > decide what to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hiroshi, you can't vote for 2, 3, and ?.
> > > >
> > > > Why ?
> > > > I don't think the items are exclusive.
> > >
> > > Well, 2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,
> >
> > Sorry for my poor understanding.
> > Isn't it 1 ?
>
> OK, original email attached. 1 rolls back all SETs in an aborted
> transaction.

> 2 ignores SETs after transaction aborts, but SETs before
> the transaction aborted are honored.

Must I understand this from your previous posting
(2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,)
or original posting ? What I understood was 2 only
says that SET fails between a failure and the
subsequenct ROLLBACK call.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/