| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | 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 00:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200204100013.g3A0DLg28073@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, we have three possibilities:
> > >
> > > o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> > >
> > > I think the problem is our current behavior. I don't think anyone can
> > > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> > > abort state). Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
> >
> > I think the current state is not that bad at least
> > is better than the first.
>
> Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
> If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.
The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.
--
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 | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-10 00:25:50 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-10 00:06:22 | Re: Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade. |