Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does anyone see any cases where it's important for SET to start
>> a transaction? (Of course, if you are already *in* a transaction,
>> the SET will be part of that transaction. The question is whether
>> we want SET to trigger an implicit BEGIN or not.)
> Uh, well, because we now have SET's rollback in an aborted transaction,
> there is an issue of whether the SET is part of the transaction or not.
> Seems it has to be for consistency with our rollback behavior.
Yeah, it must be part of the transaction unless we want to reopen the
SET-rollback can of worms (which I surely don't want to).
However, a SET issued outside any pre-existing transaction block could
form a self-contained transaction without any logical difficulty, even
in autocommit-off mode. The question is whether that's more or less
convenient, or standards-conforming, than what we have.
An alternative that I'd really rather not consider is making SET's
behavior dependent on exactly which variable is being set ...
regards, tom lane
