Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

OK, the votes are in:#1Lamar OwenJan WieckTom LaneBruce MomjianJoe ConwayCurt SampsonMichael LoftisVince
VielhaberSanderSteffann #2Bradley McLean   #3#?Thomas LockhartHiroshi Inoue
 

Looks like #1 is the clear winner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026