| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-08 13:10:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200204081310.g38DAtZ12550@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak wrote:
> I agree with Peter. For example I have multi-encoding client program
> that changing client-encoding in the middle of transaction and this
> change not depend on transaction. And the other thing: I have DB
> driver in an program there is not possible do SQL query outsite
> transaction.
No problem executing a SET inside its own transaction. The rollback
happens only if the SET fails, which for a single SEt command, should be
fine.
>
> Is there some problem implement "SET ... ON ROLLBACK UNSET" ?
Seems kind of strange. If anything, I can imagine a NO ROLLBACK
capability. However, because this can be easily done by executing the
SET in its own transaction, it seems like overengineering.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-08 14:08:17 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-08 13:02:03 | Re: timeout implementation issues |