On 01/04/2017 04:36 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 5 January 2017 at 08:35, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 5 January 2017 at 01:49, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>>> Good. So we seem to agree that GUCS are transactional? >> >> No. We don't agree. They aren't. > > Uh. I take that back. > > craig=> SET x.s = 'x'; > SET > craig=> BEGIN; > BEGIN > craig=> SET x.s = 'y'; > SET > craig=> ROLLBACK; > ROLLBACK > craig=> SHOW x.s; > x.s > ----- > x > (1 row) > > > I'm surprised, I never knew this. (I have not been able to keep up with the shear volume on this thread, but this caught my eye...) Yeah -- I found it surprising when I first discovered it too. My opinion is that the design for variables should not behave this way. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
