Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

OK, the votes are in:

#1
Lamar Owen
Jan Wieck
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Joe Conway
Curt Sampson
Michael Loftis
Vince Vielhaber
Sander Steffann

#2
Bradley McLean



#3

#?
Thomas Lockhart
Hiroshi Inoue

Looks like #1 is the clear winner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
> transaction? This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
> forward if needed.
>
> In the case of:
>
> SET x=1;
> BEGIN;
> SET x=2;
> query_that_aborts_transaction;
> SET x=3;
> COMMIT;
>
> at the end, should 'x' equal:
>
> 1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
> 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
> 3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
> ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
>
> Our current behavior is 2.
>
> Please vote and I will tally the results.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026