| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 15:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200204081529.g38FTw606944@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> This does not work as intended if the initial SET doesn't roll back
> upon transaction failure. Yeah, you can restructure it to
>
> SET enable_seqscan = false;
> BEGIN;
> some-queries-that-might-fail;
> END;
> SET enable_seqscan = true;
>
> but what was that argument about some apps/drivers finding it
> inconvenient to issue commands outside a transaction block?
Yes, and if you want to place the SET on a single statement in a
multi-statement transaction, doing SET outside the transaction will not
work either because it will apply to all statements in the transaction.
--
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 | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-08 15:32:50 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-08 15:28:42 | Re: timeout implementation issues |