Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I have updated the TODO to:
> >     o Abort all or commit all SET changes made in an aborted transaction    
> > I don't think our current behavior is defended by anyone.
> 
> Hiroshi seems to like it ...
> 
> However, "commit SETs even after an error" is most certainly NOT
> acceptable.  It's not even sensible --- what if the SETs themselves
> throw errors, or are depending on the results of failed non-SET
> commands; will you try to commit them anyway?
> 
> It seems to me that the choices we realistically have are
> 
> 	(a) leave the behavior the way it is
> 
> 	(b) cause all SETs in an aborted transaction to roll back.

I disagree.  You commit all the SET's you can, even if in aborted
transactions.  If they throw an error, or rely on a previous non-SET
that aborted, oh well.  That is what some are asking for.

-- 
  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