Re: timeout implementation issues

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, we have three possibilities:
> > > >
> > > >         o  All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > >         o  No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > >         o  Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem is our current behavior.  I don't think anyone can
> > > > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> > > > abort state).  Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
> > >
> > > I think the current state is not that bad at least
> > > is better than the first.
> >
> > Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
> > If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.
> 
> The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.

I see.
BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue