| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
| Date: | 2002-04-29 15:51:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3CCD6C06.64C2A73@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...
> Agreed, very non-intuitive. And can you imagine how many applications
> we would break.
What is non-intuitive about it? What it *does* do is free the programmer
from worrying about side effects which *do* break applications.
Rather than dismissing this out of hand, try to look at what it *does*
enable. It allows developers to tune specific queries without having to
restore values afterwards. Values or settings which may change from
version to version, so end up embedding time bombs into applications.
And the number of current applications "broken"? None, as a starting
point ;)
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 15:53:29 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-29 15:44:26 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |