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

Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-29 15:44:26
Message-ID: 3CCD6A5A.25D0D0B@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
...
> This would make it impossible for SET to have any persistent effect
> at all.  (Every SQL command is inside a transaction --- an
> implicitly-established one if necesary, but there is one.)

Of course the behavior would need to be defined from the user's
viewpoint, not from a literal description of how the internals work.
There *is* a difference from a user's PoV between explicit transactions
and single queries, no matter how that is implemented in the PostgreSQL
backend...

Let's not let trivial english semantics divert the discussion please.

                   - Thomas

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-04-29 15:51:34
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-29 15:33:36
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

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