Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-29 15:51:34
Message-ID: 3CCD6C06.64C2A73@fourpalms.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

...
> Agreed, very non-intuitive. And can you imagine how many applications
> we would break.

What is non-intuitive about it? What it *does* do is free the programmer
from worrying about side effects which *do* break applications.

Rather than dismissing this out of hand, try to look at what it *does*
enable. It allows developers to tune specific queries without having to
restore values afterwards. Values or settings which may change from
version to version, so end up embedding time bombs into applications.

And the number of current applications "broken"? None, as a starting
point ;)

- Thomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-29 15:53:29 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-04-29 15:44:26 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction