Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > 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 compatibility to Oracle's
> >     misbehaviour? No, thanks!
>
> How does SET relate to xmin/xmax? :)
>
   SET does not. But Bruce said he doesn't see DROP TABLE beeing   totally different. That is related to  xmin/xmax,
isn't it?   What  I  pointed  out  (or  wanted  to point out) is, that we   cannot ignore rollback for catalog changes
likeDROP TABLE.
 


Jan

--

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