Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > I don't think this is *all* *should be* or *all
> > or nothing* kind of thing. If a SET variable has
> > its reason, it would behave in its own right.
>
> Well, we could provide some kind of escape hatch to let the behavior
> vary from one variable to the next. But can you give any specific
> examples? Which SET variables should not roll back on error?
It seems veeery dangerous to conclude that SET *should*
roll back even if there's no *should not* roll back case.
There could be no *should not* roll back case because
a user could set the variable as he likes in the next
transaction.
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
