Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Man, you should know that our transactions are truly all or
> nothing. If you discard a transaction, the stamps xmin and
> xmax are ignored. This is a fundamental feature of Postgres,
> and if you're half through a utility command when you ERROR
> out, it guarantees consistency of the catalog. And now you
> want us to violate this concept for compatibility to Oracle's
> misbehaviour? No, thanks!

So you do see a difference between SET and DROP TABLE because the second
is a utility command. OK, I'll buy that, but my point was different.

My point was that we don't match Oracle for DROP TABLE, so why is
matching for SET so important?

--
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