Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> 
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > OK, we have three possibilities:
> >
> >         o  All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> >         o  No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> >         o  Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> >
> > I think the problem is our current behavior.  I don't think anyone can
> > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> > abort state).  Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
> 
> I think the current state is not that bad at least
> is better than the first.

Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue