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 00:51:07 |
Message-ID: | 200204100051.g3A0p7M01792@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I see.
> > > BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ?
> >
> > Currently, none,
>
> ??? What do you mean by
> o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> ?
> Is the current state different from
> o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> ?
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. If all SET's were
honored, x = 2. If no SETs in an aborted transaction were honored, x
would equal whatever it was before the BEGIN WORK above.
--
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 | Gavin Sherry | 2002-04-10 01:17:13 | Re: notification: pg_notify ? |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-10 00:46:43 | Re: timeout implementation issues |