From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
Date: | 2002-04-29 16:27:10 |
Message-ID: | 1020097630.27493.15.camel@taru.tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its
> environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should
> be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found
> it. If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
done outside transaction.
If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
transaction.
Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
really confuse the user.
> I would argue that the rollback on failure / don't rollback on completion
> is actually the worse possible way to handle this, because, again, this
> isn't about data, it's about environment. And I don't think things inside
> a transaction should be mucking with the environment around them when
> they're done.
That would assume nested transactions which we don't have yet.
---------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-04-29 16:29:33 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 16:20:07 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |