Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Okay, based on this, I'm pseudo-against ... I think, for reasons of
> > reducing headaches for ppl posting, there should be some sort of 'SET
> > oracle_quirks' operation that would allow for those with largish legacy
> > apps trying to migrate over to do so without having to check for "odd"
> > behaviours like this ...
> >
> > Or maybe "SET set_rollbacks = oracle"?  with default being #1 as discussed
>
> Yes, I understand.  However, seeing that we have gone 6 years with this
> never being an issue, I think we should just shoot for #1 and keep open
> to the idea of having a compatibility mode, and the possibility that #1
> may not fit for all SET variables and we may have to do some special
> cases for those.
>
> My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
> 7.3.

IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the
options have been, but which to implement haven't ... right now, #1 is
proposing to implement something that goes against what *at least* one of
DBMS does ... so now you have programmers coming from that environment
expecting one thing to happen, when a totally different thing results ...