Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own
> > transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are
> > rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any
> > non-SET"?
>
> Not really, I don't think.
>
> But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being
> rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such
> as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back.
Yes, but the question is whether it is better to be consistent and roll
them all back, or to pick and choose which ones to roll back.
Consistency is nice.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
