Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > Just curious here, but has anyone taken the time to see how others are
> > doing this? For instance, if we go with 1, are going against how everyone
> > else handles it? IMHO, its not a popularity contest ...
>
> Yes, good point. I don't know that they use SET, but if they do, we
> should find out how they handle it, though I doubt they have thought
> through their SET handling as well as we have. My guess is that they do
> 3, honor all SETs.

Connected to:
Oracle8 Enterprise Edition Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production
PL/SQL Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production

SQL> SELECT TO_CHAR(SYSDATE) FROM DUAL;

TO_CHAR(S
---------
25-APR-02

SQL> COMMIT;

Commit complete.

SQL> ALTER SESSION SET NLS_DATE_FORMAT = 'YYYY MM DD';

Session altered.

SQL> ROLLBACK;

Rollback complete.

SQL> SELECT TO_CHAR(SYSDATE) FROM DUAL;

TO_CHAR(SY
----------
2002 04 25

Of course, with Oracle, the only operations which can be rolled back are
INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs (DML statements). A long time ago, on a
planet far, far away, I argued that PostgreSQL should follow Oracle's
behavior in this regard. I stand corrected. The ability to rollback DROP
TABLE is a very nice feature Oracle doesn't have, and to remain
consistent, I agree with all of those that have voted for #1.

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com