From: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2002-04-24 18:20:23 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.40.0204241420040.19948-100000@paprika.michvhf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Vote number 1 -- ROLL BACK
I agree.. Number 1 - ROLL BACK
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
> >transaction? This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
> >forward if needed.
> >
> >In the case of:
> >
> > SET x=1;
> > BEGIN;
> > SET x=2;
> > query_that_aborts_transaction;
> > SET x=3;
> > COMMIT;
> >
> >at the end, should 'x' equal:
> >
> > 1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
> > 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
> > 3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
> > ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
> >
> >Our current behavior is 2.
> >
> >Please vote and I will tally the results.
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-24 18:24:48 | Re: Inefficient handling of LO-restore + Patch |
Previous Message | Igor Kovalenko | 2002-04-24 18:19:22 | Re: "make report" |