Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its
> > environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should
> > be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found
> > it. If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
> Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
> done outside transaction.
> If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
> Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
> really confuse the user.
Agreed, very non-intuitive. And can you imagine how many applications
we would break.
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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2002-04-29 15:44:26|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-29 15:30:35|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |