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

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: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>,Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-26 02:20:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> >
> > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it?  Is
> Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that?  *Adding* something
> (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...

Yes, let's find out what the others do.  I don't see DROP TABLE
rollbacking as totally different.  How is it different from SET?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-26 02:22:22
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-26 02:18:47
Subject: Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group