| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, 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 20:06:48 |
| Message-ID: | 3CCDA7D8.E1888475@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't really get it. We had a voting and I think I saw a
> clear enough result with #1, transactional behaviour, as the
> winner. Maybe I missed something, but what's this
> disscussion about?
Getting the right solution ;)
There was not a consensus, just a vote, and the *reasons* for the lack
of consensus were not yet being addressed. They are now (or some are
anyway), and the new proposal helped set that in motion.
I would think that a vote in the absence of consensus is not always
optimal (I'll leave aside stating my view on this case ;), but it has
helped focus the discussion. It is always amazing to me how threads
emerge which bring a consensus when there wasn't even one on the
horizon.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-29 20:36:52 | Re: Vacation in May |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 19:43:30 | Syscache/relcache invalidation event callbacks |