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

From Curt Sampson
Subject Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date
Msg-id Pine.NEB.4.43.0204261435210.1733-100000@angelic.cynic.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> NOTE that I *do* think that #1 is what *should* happen, but there should
> be some way of turning off that behaviour so that we don't screw up ppl
> expecting "Oracles behaviour" ...

I don't think this follows. If it's only for people's expectations,
but we default to #1, their expectations will be violated until
they figure out that the option is there. After they figure out
it's there, well, they don't expect it to behave like Oracle any
more, so they don't need the switch, right?

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org   Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight.  --XTC
 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Block size: 8K or 16K?
Next
From: Curt Sampson
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL -> Replication