Re: timeout implementation issues

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 00:46:43
Message-ID: 3CB38B73.1EAA419B@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > 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 ?
>
> Currently, none,

??? What do you mean by
o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
?
Is the current state different from
o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-10 00:51:07 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-10 00:27:01 Re: timeout implementation issues