Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Michael Loftis wrote:
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > >
> > >>I have added this to the TODO list, with a question mark. Hope this is
> > >>OK with everyone.
> > >>
> > >
> > >> o Abort SET changes made in aborted transactions (?)
> > >>
> > >
> > >Actually, I was planning to make only search_path act that way, because
> > >of all the push-back I'd gotten on applying it to other SET variables.
> > >search_path really *has* to have it, but if there's anyone who agrees
> > >with me about doing it for all SET vars, they didn't speak up :-(
> > >
> > I did and do, strongly. TRANSACTIONS are supposed to leave things as
> > they were before the BEGIN. It either all happens or it all doesnt'
> > happen. If you need soemthing inside of a transaction to go
> > irregardless then it shouldn't be within the transaction.
>
> Oops is this issue still living ?
> I object to the TODO(why ????) strongly.
> Please remove it from the TODO first and put it back
> to the neutral position.

OK, how is this:

o Abort all or commit all SET changes made in an aborted transaction

Is this neutral? I don't think our current behavior is defended by anyone.

--
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