Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 15:20:52
Message-ID: 26386.1019834452@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> SET does not. But Bruce said he doesn't see DROP TABLE beeing
> totally different. That is related to xmin/xmax, isn't it?

I think what Bruce meant was "if rollback is good for DROP TABLE,
why isn't it good for SET"?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lincoln Yeoh 2002-04-26 15:35:36 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2002-04-26 15:15:08 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction