On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:01:07AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I didn't say "transaction specific". I said that if you do a SET inside
> > a transaction block, and then the transaction is aborted, the effects of
> > the SET ought to roll back along with everything else you did inside
> > that transaction block. I'm not seeing what the argument is against
> > this.
>
> I consider SET variables metadata that are not affected by transactions.
> I should be able to change my mind about my session preferences in the
> middle of a transaction, no matter what happens to the data in it. Say
I agree with Peter. For example I have multi-encoding client program that changing client-encoding in the middle of
transactionand thischange not depend on transaction. And the other thing: I have DBdriver in an program there is not
possibledo SQL query outsitetransaction.
Is there some problem implement "SET ... ON ROLLBACK UNSET" ?
Karel
-- Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz,
http://mape.jcu.cz
