From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
Date: | 2002-04-26 15:35:36 |
Message-ID: | 5.1.0.14.1.20020426231925.0302c0e0@192.228.128.13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 10:34 AM 4/26/02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> writes:
> > Coz some things should not be rolled back. So you guys might come up
> with a
> > different keyword for it.
>
> > CONFIG: for non transactional stuff that can appear as SQL statements.
> > SET: for stuff that can be transactional.
>
>People keep suggesting this, and I keep asking for a concrete example
>where non-rollback is needed, and I keep not getting one. I can't see
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm not asking for non-rollback behaviour.
I was trying to say that _IF_ one ever needs to "SET" stuff that can't be
rolled back then it may be better to use some other keyword for that feature.
I'm actually for #1 SET being rolled back and to not have any "Oracle
behaviour" settings at all. Anything that can't be rolled back shouldn't
use SET.
> > Practical example: Does doing an enable seqscan affect OTHER db
> connections
> > and transactions as well?
>
>There are no SET commands that affect other backends. (There are
>GUC variables with system-wide effects, but we don't allow them to be
>changed by SET; rollback or not won't affect that.)
OK.
Cheerio,
Link
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-26 15:44:29 | Re: pg_constraint |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-26 15:20:52 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |