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 200204291533.g3TFXas03874@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>)
Responses Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
> done outside transaction.
> 
> If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
> transaction. 
> 
> Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
> really confuse the user.

Agreed, very non-intuitive.  And can you imagine how many applications
we would break.

--  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: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction