On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> > I've been thinking this over and over, and it seems to me, that the way
> > SETS in transactions SHOULD work is that they are all rolled back, period,
> > whether the transaction successfully completes OR NOT.
>
> This would make it impossible for SET to have any persistent effect
> at all. (Every SQL command is inside a transaction --- an
> implicitly-established one if necesary, but there is one.)
>
> It might well be useful to have some kind of LOCAL SET command that
> behaves the way you describe (effects good only for current transaction
> block), but I don't think it follows that that should be the only
> behavior available.
>
> What would you expect if LOCAL SET were followed by SET on the same
> variable in the same transaction? Presumably the LOCAL SET would then
> be nullified; or is this an error condition?
Perhaps we could do
SET SET TO LOCAL TO TRANSACTION;
Which would affect itself and all subsequent SET commands up to
SET SET TO GLOBAL;
or end of transaction.
-------------
SET SET TO GLOBAL
could also be written as
SET SET TO NOT LOCAL TO TRANSACTION;
to comply with genral verbosity of SQL ;)
----------
Hannu
