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

Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-23 18:27:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
> transaction?  This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
> forward if needed.
> In the case of:
> 	SET x=1;
> 	SET x=2;
> 	query_that_aborts_transaction;
> 	SET x=3;
> at the end, should 'x' equal:
> 	1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
> 	2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
> 	3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
> 	? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
> Our current behavior is 2.

1 makes the most sense to me. I think it should be consistent for all 
SET variables.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2002-04-23 18:59:17
Subject: Re: Documentation on page files
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-23 18:07:19
Subject: Re: RENAME TRIGGER patch (was [HACKERS] Odd(?) RI-trigger

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