Re: timeout implementation issues

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