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 200204260220.g3Q2Kn511415@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>)
Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >
> > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> >
> > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> 
> Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it?  Is
> Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that?  *Adding* something
> (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...

Yes, let's find out what the others do.  I don't see DROP TABLE
rollbacking as totally different.  How is it different from SET?

--  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: 8K vs 16K block size report
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction