> > I consider SET variables metadata that are not affected by transactions.
> Why? Again, the fact that historically they've not acted that way isn't
> sufficient reason for me.
Hmm. Historically, SET controls behaviors *out of band* with the normal
transaction mechanisms. There is strong precedent for this mechanism
*because it is a useful concept*, not simply because it has always been
done this way.
*If* some aspects of SET take on transactional behavior, then this
should be *in addition to* the current global scope for those commands.
What problem are we trying to solve with this? The topic came up in a
discussion on implementing timeouts for JDBC. afaik it has not come up
*in any context* for the last seven years, so maybe we should settle
down a bit and refocus on the problem at hand...
- Thomas
