Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-25 02:06:10
Message-ID: 200204250206.g3P26AJ16664@saturn.janwieck.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Sure should it! You gave an example for the need to roll
> > back, because
> > otherwise you would end up with an invalid
> > search path "foo".
>
> What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback*
> would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise
> the insert command would try to append the data of the
> table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying
> schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema
> command suceeded.

Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer
wrong placed to make up your case ;-p

There is absolutely no need to put the insert outside of the
transaction that is intended to copy schema1.t1 to foo.t1.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Loftis 2002-04-25 02:06:12 Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2002-04-25 02:00:41 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction