| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:20:58 |
| Message-ID: | 3CC7680A.97D4C5EC@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Loftis wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> >Where's the restriction that all objects in a schema
> >must be created in an transaction ? Each user has his
> >reason and would need various kind of command call sequence.
> >What I've mainly insisted is what to do with errors is
> >users' responsibilty but I've never seen the agreement
> >for it. So my current understanding is you all
> >are thinking what to do with errors is system's
> >responsibilty. Then no matter how users call commands
> >the dbms must behave appropriately, mustn't it ?
> >
> IMHO as a user and developer it's more important to behave consistently.
> A rollback should cause everything inside of a transaciton block to
> rollback.
Where does the *should* come from ?
The standard says that changes to the database should
be put back but doesn't say everything should be put back.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-25 02:37:36 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Previous Message | Michael Loftis | 2002-04-25 02:08:56 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |