Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, we have three possibilities:
> > > >
> > > > o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > > o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > > o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem is our current behavior. I don't think anyone can
> > > > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> > > > abort state). Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
> > >
> > > I think the current state is not that bad at least
> > > is better than the first.
> >
> > Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
> > If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.
>
> The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.
I see.
BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
