Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
От | Michael Loftis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3CC76538.9060606@wgops.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Hiroshi, we need a psql solution too. People are feeding query files >into psql all the time and we should have an appropriate behavior for >them. > >I now understand your point that from a ODBC perspective, you may not >want SETs rolled back and you would rather ODBC handle what to do with >SETs. Not sure I like pushing that job off to the application >programmer, but I think I see your point. > Ahhh Hiroshi is talkign formt he aspect of ODBC? Well, thats an ODBC issue, should be handled by the ODBC driver. Compliance with ODBC spec (or non-compliance) is not the issue of PostgreSQL proper. Thats the issue of the ODBC driver and it's maintainers (sorry if I'm sounding like a bastard but heh). If we start catering to all the different driver layers then we'll end up with a huge mess. What we're 'catering' to is the SQLxx specs, and the expectations of a user when running and developing programs, am I right?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: