Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-18 08:56:43
Message-ID: 3CBE8A4B.4080206@wgops.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>>I have added this to the TODO list, with a question mark. Hope this is
>>OK with everyone.
>>
>
>> o Abort SET changes made in aborted transactions (?)
>>
>
>Actually, I was planning to make only search_path act that way, because
>of all the push-back I'd gotten on applying it to other SET variables.
>search_path really *has* to have it, but if there's anyone who agrees
>with me about doing it for all SET vars, they didn't speak up :-(
>
I did and do, strongly. TRANSACTIONS are supposed to leave things as
they were before the BEGIN. It either all happens or it all doesnt'
happen. If you need soemthing inside of a transaction to go
irregardless then it shouldn't be within the transaction.

>regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karel Zak 2002-04-18 09:04:21 Re: updated qCache
Previous Message Karel Zak 2002-04-18 08:55:19 Re: updated qCache