Re: timeout implementation issues

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > ??? What do you mean by
> > > >    o  Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> > > > ?
> > > > Is the current state different from
> > > >      o  All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > In the case of:
> > >
> > >         BEGIN WORK;
> > >         SET x=1;
> > >         bad query that aborts transaction;
> > >         SET x=2;
> > >         COMMIT WORK;
> > >
> > > Only the first SET is done, so at the end, x = 1.  If all SET's were
> > > honored, x = 2. If no SETs in an aborted transaction were honored, x
> > > would equal whatever it was before the BEGIN WORK above.
> >
> > IMHO
> >       o  No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction(current)
> >
> > The first SET isn't done in an aborted transaction.
> 
> I guess my point is that with our current code, there is a distinction
> that SETs are executed before a transaction aborts, but are ignored
> after a transaction aborts, even if the SETs are in the same
> transaction.

Not only SET commands but also most commands are ignored
after a transaction aborts currently. SET commands are out
of transactional control but it doesn't mean they are never
ignore(rejecte)d.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue