Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted > transaction? This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move > forward if needed. > > In the case of: > > SET x=1; > BEGIN; > SET x=2; > query_that_aborts_transaction; > SET x=3; > COMMIT; > > at the end, should 'x' equal: > > 1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction > 2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort > 3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction > ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable > > Our current behavior is 2.
1 makes the most sense to me. I think it should be consistent for all SET variables. Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
