Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-29 16:27:10
Message-ID: 1020097630.27493.15.camel@taru.tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its
> environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should
> be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found
> it. If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.

Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
done outside transaction.

If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
transaction.

Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
really confuse the user.

> I would argue that the rollback on failure / don't rollback on completion
> is actually the worse possible way to handle this, because, again, this
> isn't about data, it's about environment. And I don't think things inside
> a transaction should be mucking with the environment around them when
> they're done.

That would assume nested transactions which we don't have yet.

---------------
Hannu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2002-04-29 16:29:33 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-29 16:20:07 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction