Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-25 00:06:59
Message-ID: 3CC748A3.22170450@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>

> Right offhand, I am not seeing anything here for which there's a
> compelling case not to roll it back on error.
>
> In fact, I have yet to hear *any* plausible example of a variable
> that we would really seriously want not to roll back on error.

Honetsly I don't understand what kind of example you
expect. How about the following ?

[The curren schema is schema1]

begin;
create schema foo;
set search_path = foo;
create table t1 (....);
.
[error occurs]
rollback;
insert into t1 select * from schema1.t1;

Should the search_path be put back in this case ?
As I mentioned already many times, it doesn't seem
*should be* kind of thing.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-25 00:39:28 Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-04-24 23:42:43 Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction