Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, 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 18:49:27
Message-ID: 526.1020106167@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> I don't really get it. We had a voting and I think I saw a
> clear enough result with #1, transactional behaviour, as the
> winner. Maybe I missed something, but what's this
> disscussion about?

We agreed on transactional behavior ... but Scott is proposing a variant
that was not considered earlier, and it seems worth considering.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2002-04-29 18:52:19 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-04-29 18:41:33 Re: Vacation in May