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?