Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Hiroshi, we need a psql solution too. People are feeding query files
>into psql all the time and we should have an appropriate behavior for
>I now understand your point that from a ODBC perspective, you may not
>want SETs rolled back and you would rather ODBC handle what to do with
>SETs. Not sure I like pushing that job off to the application
>programmer, but I think I see your point.
Ahhh Hiroshi is talkign formt he aspect of ODBC? Well, thats an ODBC
issue, should be handled by the ODBC driver. Compliance with ODBC spec
(or non-compliance) is not the issue of PostgreSQL proper. Thats the
issue of the ODBC driver and it's maintainers (sorry if I'm sounding
like a bastard but heh).
If we start catering to all the different driver layers then we'll end
up with a huge mess. What we're 'catering' to is the SQLxx specs, and
the expectations of a user when running and developing programs, am I right?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2002-04-25 02:20:58|
|Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2002-04-25 02:08:51|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction|