Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > ??? 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.
>
> IMHO
> o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction(current)
>
> The first SET isn't done in an aborted transaction.

Well, yes, when I say aborted transaction, I mean the entire
transaction, not just the part after the abort happens. All non-SET
commands in the transaction are rolled back already. I can't think of a
good argument for our current behavior.

--
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