Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>

From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-04-25T02:08:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Hiroshi, we need a psql solution too.  People are feeding query files
>into psql all the time and we should have an appropriate behavior for
>them.
>
>I now understand your point that from a ODBC perspective, you may not
>want SETs rolled back and you would rather ODBC handle what to do with
>SETs.  Not sure I like pushing that job off to the application
>programmer, but I think I see your point.
>

Ahhh Hiroshi is talkign formt he aspect of ODBC?  Well, thats an ODBC 
issue, should be handled by the ODBC driver.  Compliance with ODBC spec 
(or non-compliance) is not the issue of PostgreSQL proper.  Thats the 
issue of the ODBC driver and it's maintainers (sorry if I'm sounding 
like a bastard but heh).

If we start catering to all the different driver layers then we'll end 
up with a huge mess.  What we're 'catering' to is the SQLxx specs, and 
the expectations of a user when running and developing programs, am I right?