Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I voted not only ? but also 2 and 3.
> > > > > And haven't I asked twice or so if it's a vote ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is a vote, and now that we see how everyone feels, we can
> > > > decide what to do.
> > > >
> > > > Hiroshi, you can't vote for 2, 3, and ?.
> > >
> > > Why ?
> > > I don't think the items are exclusive.
> >
> > Well, 2 says roll back only after transaction aborts,
>
> Sorry for my poor understanding.
> Isn't it 1 ?
OK, original email attached. 1 rolls back all SETs in an aborted
transaction. 2 ignores SETs after transaction aborts, but SETs before
the transaction aborted are honored. 3 honors all SETs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of:
SET x=1; BEGIN; SET x=2; query_that_aborts_transaction; SET x=3; COMMIT;
at the end, should 'x' equal:
1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort 3 -
AllSETs are honored in aborted transaction ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
Our current behavior is 2.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
