Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I see.
> > > BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ?
> > 
> > Currently, none,
> 
> ??? What do you mean by 
>    o  Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current)
> ?
> Is the current state different from
>      o  All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction
> ?

In the case of:

	BEGIN WORK;
	SET x=1;
	bad query that aborts transaction;
	SET x=2;
	COMMIT WORK;

Only the first SET is done, so at the end, x = 1.  If all SET's were
honored, x = 2. If no SETs in an aborted transaction were honored, x
would equal whatever it was before the BEGIN WORK above.


-- 
  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