Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > 
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, we have three possibilities:
> > >
> > >         o  All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > >         o  No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> > >         o  Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> > >
> > > I think the problem is our current behavior.  I don't think anyone can
> > > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches
> > > abort state).  Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think.
> > 
> > I think the current state is not that bad at least
> > is better than the first.
> 
> Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ?
> If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second.

The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.
 
-- 
  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