Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-04-29T20:06:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I don't really get it. We had a voting and I think I saw a
> clear enough result with #1, transactional behaviour, as the
> winner. Maybe I missed something, but what's this
> disscussion about?
Getting the right solution ;)
There was not a consensus, just a vote, and the *reasons* for the lack
of consensus were not yet being addressed. They are now (or some are
anyway), and the new proposal helped set that in motion.
I would think that a vote in the absence of consensus is not always
optimal (I'll leave aside stating my view on this case ;), but it has
helped focus the discussion. It is always amazing to me how threads
emerge which bring a consensus when there wasn't even one on the
horizon.
- Thomas