Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Must I understand this from your previous posting
> (2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,)
> or original posting ? What I understood was 2 only
> says that SET fails between a failure and the
> subsequenct ROLLBACK call.

Yes, 2 says that SET fails between failure query and COMMIT/ROLLBACK
call, which is 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