| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-09 23:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB37A3F.4214AF30@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, we have three possibilities:
>
> o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
>
> I think the problem is our current behavior. I don't think anyone can
> say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> abort state). Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
I think the current state is not that bad at least
is better than the first. I don't think it's a
*should be* kind of thing and we shouldn't stick
to it any longer.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-09 23:42:59 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bradley McLean | 2002-04-09 23:25:15 | Re: Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade. |