| From: | Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Date: | 2002-04-25 02:08:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3CC76538.9060606@wgops.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Hiroshi, we need a psql solution too. People are feeding query files
>into psql all the time and we should have an appropriate behavior for
>them.
>
>I now understand your point that from a ODBC perspective, you may not
>want SETs rolled back and you would rather ODBC handle what to do with
>SETs. Not sure I like pushing that job off to the application
>programmer, but I think I see your point.
>
Ahhh Hiroshi is talkign formt he aspect of ODBC? Well, thats an ODBC
issue, should be handled by the ODBC driver. Compliance with ODBC spec
(or non-compliance) is not the issue of PostgreSQL proper. Thats the
issue of the ODBC driver and it's maintainers (sorry if I'm sounding
like a bastard but heh).
If we start catering to all the different driver layers then we'll end
up with a huge mess. What we're 'catering' to is the SQLxx specs, and
the expectations of a user when running and developing programs, am I right?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-25 02:20:58 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-25 02:08:51 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |