Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, probably good time for summarization. First, consider this:
>
> BEGIN WORK;
> SET something;
> query fails;
> SET something else;
> COMMIT WORK;
>
> Under current behavior, the first SET is honored, while the second is
> ignored because the transaction is in ABORT state. I can see no logical
> reason for this behavior.
But that is not a shortcoming of the SET command. The problem is that the
system does not accept any commands after one command has failed in a
transaction even though it could usefully do so.
> The jdbc timeout issue is this:
>
>
> BEGIN WORK;
> SET query_timeout=20;
> query fails;
> SET query_timeout=0;
> COMMIT WORK;
>
> In this case, with our current code, the first SET is done, but the
> second is ignored.
Given appropriate functionality, you could rewrite this thus:
BEGIN WORK;
SET FOR THIS TRANSACTION ONLY query_timeout=20;
query;
COMMIT WORK;
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
