Tom Lane wrote: > Lincoln Yeoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Coz some things should not be rolled back. So you guys might come up with a > > different keyword for it. > > > CONFIG: for non transactional stuff that can appear as SQL statements. > > SET: for stuff that can be transactional. > > People keep suggesting this, and I keep asking for a concrete example > where non-rollback is needed, and I keep not getting one. I can't see > the value of investing work in creating an alternative behavior when > we have no solid example to justify it. > > The "Oracle compatibility" argument would have some weight if we were > making any concerted effort to be Oracle-compatible across the board; > but I have not detected any enthusiasm for that. Given that it's not > even the same syntax ("SET ..." vs "ALTER SESSION ...") I'm not sure > why an Oracle user would expect it to behave exactly the same.
Agreed. OK, let me summarize. We had a vote that was overwhemingly #1. Marc made a good point that we should see how other databases behave, and we now know that Oracle and Ingres do #3 (honor all SETs in an aborted transaction). Does anyone want to change their vote from #1 to #3. Second, there is the idea of doing #1, and having a GUC variable for #3. Does anyone want that? I think Marc may. Anyone else? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org