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

Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-25 02:37:36
Message-ID: 3CC76BF0.EF47D7D4@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >     Sure  should  it!  You  gave  an example for the need to roll
> > >     back, because
> > >  otherwise you would  end  up  with  an  invalid
> > >     search path "foo".
> >
> > What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback*
> > would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise
> > the insert command would try to append the data of the
> > table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying
> > schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema
> > command suceeded.
> 
>     Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer
>     wrong placed to make up your case ;-p

Is this issue on the wrong(? not preferable) sequnence
of calls ?
Please don't miss the point.

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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-04-25 02:52:44
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-04-25 02:20:58
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

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