Vote number 1 -- ROLL BACK 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. > >Please vote and I will tally the results. > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
