| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Date: | 2002-04-25 02:37:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3CC76BF0.EF47D7D4@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Sure should it! You gave an example for the need to roll
> > > back, because
> > > otherwise you would end up with an invalid
> > > search path "foo".
> >
> > What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback*
> > would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise
> > the insert command would try to append the data of the
> > table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying
> > schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema
> > command suceeded.
>
> Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer
> wrong placed to make up your case ;-p
Is this issue on the wrong(? not preferable) sequnence
of calls ?
Please don't miss the point.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-25 02:52:44 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-25 02:20:58 | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |