Re: timeout implementation issues

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > 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
> > ?
>
> In the case of:
>
> BEGIN WORK;
> SET x=1;
> bad query that aborts transaction;
> SET x=2;
> COMMIT WORK;
>
> Only the first SET is done, so at the end, x = 1. If all SET's were
> honored, x = 2. If no SETs in an aborted transaction were honored, x
> would equal whatever it was before the BEGIN WORK above.

IMHO
o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction(current)

The first SET isn't done in an aborted transaction.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue