| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Date: | 2002-04-25 02:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | 200204250206.g3P26AJ16664@saturn.janwieck.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Sure should it! You gave an example for the need to roll
> > back, because
> > otherwise you would end up with an invalid
> > search path "foo".
>
> What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback*
> would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise
> the insert command would try to append the data of the
> table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying
> schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema
> command suceeded.
Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer
wrong placed to make up your case ;-p
There is absolutely no need to put the insert outside of the
transaction that is intended to copy schema1.t1 to foo.t1.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Loftis | 2002-04-25 02:06:12 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-04-25 02:00:41 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |