| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-03 20:03:23 |
| Message-ID: | 12069.1017864203@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Does anyone know the ramifications of allowing SET to work in an aborted
> transaction?
This is not an option.
The case that will definitely Not Work is SET variables whose setting
or checking requires database accesses. The new search_path variable
certainly works that way; not sure if there are any other cases at the
moment, but I'd not like to say that there can never be any such
variables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | SHELTON,MICHAEL (Non-HP-Boise,ex1) | 2002-04-03 20:03:55 | FW: Suggestions please: names for function cachability |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-04-03 19:41:18 | Re: ANALYZE after restore |