Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > > > > I voted not only ? but also 2 and 3.
> > > > > And haven't I asked twice or so if it's a vote ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is a vote, and now that we see how everyone feels, we can
> > > > decide what to do.
> > > >
> > > > Hiroshi, you can't vote for 2, 3, and ?.
> > >
> > > Why ?
> > > I don't think the items are exclusive.
> > 
> > Well, 2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,
> 
> Sorry for my poor understanding.
> Isn't it 1 ?

OK, original email attached. 1 rolls back all SETs in an aborted
transaction.  2 ignores SETs after transaction aborts, but  SETs before
the transaction aborted are honored.  3 honors all SETs.

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


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 -
AllSETs are honored in aborted transaction       ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
 

Our current behavior is 2.

--  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