Horton

Re: timeout implementation issues

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman@dynamicdiagrams.com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>, Barry Lind <barry@xythos.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-04-08T15:29:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tom Lane wrote:
> This does not work as intended if the initial SET doesn't roll back
> upon transaction failure.  Yeah, you can restructure it to
> 
> 	SET enable_seqscan = false;
> 	BEGIN;
> 	some-queries-that-might-fail;
> 	END;
> 	SET enable_seqscan = true;
> 
> but what was that argument about some apps/drivers finding it
> inconvenient to issue commands outside a transaction block?

Yes, and if you want to place the SET on a single statement in a
multi-statement transaction, doing SET outside the transaction will not
work either because it will apply to all statements in the transaction.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026