Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date
Msg-id 1020102474.27495.46.camel@taru.tm.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 18:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> > Rather than dismissing this out of hand, try to look at what it *does*
> > enable. It allows developers to tune specific queries without having to
> > restore values afterwards. Values or settings which may change from
> > version to version, so end up embedding time bombs into applications.
> 
> I think it's a great idea. 

So do I. 

And I also think that this will solve the original issue, which iirc was
rolling back SET TIMEOUT at ABORT.

If we have LOCAL SET, there is no need to have any other mechanism for
ROLLING BACK/COMMITing SET's - SET and DML can be kept totally separate,
as they should be based on fact that SET does not directly affect data.

--------------
Hannu



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Olivier PRENANT
Date:
Subject: Re: clarification of timestamp
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction