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

Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>,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 18:49:27
Message-ID: 526.1020106167@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>     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?

We agreed on transactional behavior ... but Scott is proposing a variant
that was not considered earlier, and it seems worth considering.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2002-04-29 18:52:19
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-04-29 18:41:33
Subject: Re: Vacation in May

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