Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-25 15:50:27
Message-ID: 200204251550.g3PFoRc18121@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Just curious here, but has anyone taken the time to see how others are
> doing this? For instance, if we go with 1, are going against how everyone
> else handles it? IMHO, its not a popularity contest ...

Yes, good point. I don't know that they use SET, but if they do, we
should find out how they handle it, though I doubt they have thought
through their SET handling as well as we have. My guess is that they do
3, honor all SETs.

--
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-04-25 16:48:13 Re: md5 passwords and pg_shadow
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-25 15:44:49 Re: pid gets overwritten in OSX