Oh, I like ... kinda like in perl where if you set a variable 'my' inside
of conditional, it no longer exists outside of that conditional ...
I do like this ...
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I've been thinking this over and over, and it seems to me, that the way
> SETS in transactions SHOULD work is that they are all rolled back, period,
> whether the transaction successfully completes OR NOT.
>
> Transactions ensure that either all or none of the DATA in the database is
> changed. That nature is good. But does it make sense to apply
> transactional mechanics to SETtings? I don't think it does.
>
> SETtings aren't data operators, so they don't need to be rolled back /
> committed so to speak. Their purpose is to affect the way things like the
> database works in a more overreaching sense, not the data underneath it.
>
> For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its
> environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should
> be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found
> it. If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
>
> I would argue that the rollback on failure / don't rollback on completion
> is actually the worse possible way to handle this, because, again, this
> isn't about data, it's about environment. And I don't think things inside
> a transaction should be mucking with the environment around them when
> they're done.
>
> But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Scott Marlowe
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>
