Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its 
> environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should 
> be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found 
> it.  If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.

Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
done outside transaction.

If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
transaction. 

Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
really confuse the user.
 
> I would argue that the rollback on failure / don't rollback on completion 
> is actually the worse possible way to handle this, because, again, this 
> isn't about data, it's about environment.  And I don't think things inside 
> a transaction should be mucking with the environment around them when 
> they're done.

That would assume nested transactions which we don't have yet.
 
---------------
Hannu