Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
From: Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-04-25T02:06:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Sure should it! You gave an example for the need to roll
> > back, because
> > otherwise you would end up with an invalid
> > search path "foo".
>
> What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback*
> would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise
> the insert command would try to append the data of the
> table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying
> schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema
> command suceeded.
Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer
wrong placed to make up your case ;-p
There is absolutely no need to put the insert outside of the
transaction that is intended to copy schema1.t1 to foo.t1.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #