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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date
Msg-id 200204251550.g3PFoRc18121@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> Just curious here, but has anyone taken the time to see how others are
> doing this?  For instance, if we go with 1, are going against how everyone
> else handles it?  IMHO, its not a popularity contest ...

Yes, good point.  I don't know that they use SET, but if they do, we
should find out how they handle it, though I doubt they have thought
through their SET handling as well as we have.  My guess is that they do
3, honor all SETs.

--  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
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead