Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lincoln Yeoh
Subject Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date
Msg-id 5.1.0.14.1.20020427080217.03043810@192.228.128.13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
At 11:49 AM 4/26/02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>I'm still looking for an example of something that is (a) reasonable
>to set on a per-backend basis, and (b) not reasonable to roll back
>if it's set in a transaction that fails.

The way I see it is if (a) and you don't want it rolled back, you could put 
it in a transaction of its own.
BEGIN;
SET backend pref;
COMMIT;

And if that transaction fails, maybe it should :).

So other than for performance, the example should also have a reason to 
belong with other statements in a transaction.

Have a nice weekend,
Link.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL -> Replication
Next
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction