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 200204251826.g3PIQ1E05320@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  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Okay, based on this, I'm pseudo-against ... I think, for reasons of
> reducing headaches for ppl posting, there should be some sort of 'SET
> oracle_quirks' operation that would allow for those with largish legacy
> apps trying to migrate over to do so without having to check for "odd"
> behaviours like this ...
> 
> Or maybe "SET set_rollbacks = oracle"?  with default being #1 as discussed

Yes, I understand.  However, seeing that we have gone 6 years with this
never being an issue, I think we should just shoot for #1 and keep open
to the idea of having a compatibility mode, and the possibility that #1
may not fit for all SET variables and we may have to do some special
cases for those.

My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
7.3.

--  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: mlw
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: md5 passwords and pg_shadow