Re: timeout implementation issues

Michael Loftis wrote:
> 
> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >
> >>I have added this to the TODO list, with a question mark.  Hope this is
> >>OK with everyone.
> >>
> >
> >>        o Abort SET changes made in aborted transactions (?)
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I was planning to make only search_path act that way, because
> >of all the push-back I'd gotten on applying it to other SET variables.
> >search_path really *has* to have it, but if there's anyone who agrees
> >with me about doing it for all SET vars, they didn't speak up :-(
> >
> I did and do, strongly.  TRANSACTIONS are supposed to leave things as
> they were before the BEGIN.  It either all happens or it all doesnt'
> happen.  If you need soemthing inside of a transaction to go
> irregardless then it shouldn't be within the transaction.

Oops is this issue still living ?
I object to the TODO(why ????) strongly.
Please remove it from the TODO first and put it back
to the neutral position.

regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/