Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

OK, the votes are in:
	
	#1
	Lamar Owen
	Jan Wieck
	Tom Lane
	Bruce Momjian
	Joe Conway
	Curt Sampson
	Michael Loftis
	Vince Vielhaber
	Sander Steffann
	 
	#2
	Bradley McLean
	 
	 
	 
	#3
	
	#?
	Thomas Lockhart
	Hiroshi Inoue

Looks like #1 is the clear winner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
> transaction?  This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
> forward if needed.
> 
> In the case of:
> 
> 	SET x=1;
> 	BEGIN;
> 	SET x=2;
> 	query_that_aborts_transaction;
> 	SET x=3;
> 	COMMIT;
> 
> at the end, should 'x' equal:
> 	
> 	1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
> 	2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
> 	3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
> 	? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
> 
> Our current behavior is 2.
> 
> Please vote and I will tally the results.
> 
> -- 
>   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
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> 

-- 
  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