| 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: | 2002-04-10 00:25:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB3868E.870FA066@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
> > If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.
>
> The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.
I see.
BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-10 00:27:01 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-10 00:13:21 | Re: timeout implementation issues |