Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> > >
> > > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> >
> > Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> > access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it?  Is
> > Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that?  *Adding* something
> > (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> > but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...
>
> Yes, let's find out what the others do.  I don't see DROP TABLE
> rollbacking as totally different.  How is it different from SET?
   Man,  you  should know that our transactions are truly all or   nothing.  If you discard a transaction, the stamps
xmin and   xmax are ignored.  This is a fundamental feature of Postgres,   and if you're half through a utility command
when you  ERROR   out,  it  guarantees consistency of the catalog.  And now you   want us to violate this concept for
compatibilityto Oracle's   misbehaviour? No, thanks!
 


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #