Re: timeout implementation issues

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: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-10 04:30:32
Message-ID: 1399.1018413032@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:
> In the case of:

> BEGIN WORK;
> SET x=1;
> bad query that aborts transaction;
> SET x=2;
> COMMIT WORK;

> Only the first SET is done, so at the end, x = 1.

Perhaps even more to the point:

SET x=0;
BEGIN;
SET x=1;
bad query;
SET x=2;
ROLLBACK;

Now x=1. How is this sensible?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-04-10 04:31:58 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-10 04:22:56 Re: timeout implementation issues