Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6244.1019581799@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Vote on SET in aborted transaction (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > 1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction > 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort > 3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction > ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable My vote is 1 - roll back all SETs. I'd be willing to consider making the behavior variable-specific if anyone can identify particular variables that need to behave differently. But overall I think it's better that the behavior be consistent --- so you'll need a good argument to convince me that anything should behave differently ;-). There is a variant case that should also have been illustrated: what if there is no error, but the user does ROLLBACK instead of COMMIT? The particular case that is causing difficulty for me is begin;create schema foo;set search_path = foo;rollback; There is *no* alternative here but to roll back the search_path setting. Therefore, the only alternatives that actually count are 1 and ? --- if you don't like 1 then you are voting for variable-specific behavior, because search_path is going to behave this way whether you like it or not. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: