Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I voted not only ? but also 2 and 3.
> > > > > And haven't I asked twice or so if it's a vote ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is a vote, and now that we see how everyone feels, we can
> > > > decide what to do.
> > > >
> > > > Hiroshi, you can't vote for 2, 3, and ?.
> > >
> > > Why ?
> > > I don't think the items are exclusive.
> >
> > Well, 2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,
>
> Sorry for my poor understanding.
> Isn't it 1 ?

OK, original email attached. 1 rolls back all SETs in an aborted
transaction. 2 ignores SETs after transaction aborts, but SETs before
the transaction aborted are honored. 3 honors all SETs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of:

SET x=1;
BEGIN;
SET x=2;
query_that_aborts_transaction;
SET x=3;
COMMIT;

at the end, should 'x' equal:

1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable

Our current behavior is 2.

--
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