Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > ??? 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.
> 
> IMHO
>       o  No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction(current)
> 
> The first SET isn't done in an aborted transaction.

I guess my point is that with our current code, there is a distinction
that SETs are executed before a transaction aborts, but are ignored
after a transaction aborts, even if the SETs are in the same
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