Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> > > >
> > > > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> > >
> > > Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> > > access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it?  Is
> > > Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that?  *Adding* something
> > > (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> > > but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...
> >
> > Yes, let's find out what the others do.  I don't see DROP TABLE
> > rollbacking as totally different.  How is it different from SET?
> 
>     Man,  you  should know that our transactions are truly all or
>     nothing.  If you discard a transaction, the stamps  xmin  and
>     xmax are ignored.  This is a fundamental feature of Postgres,
>     and if you're half through a utility command when  you  ERROR
>     out,  it  guarantees consistency of the catalog.  And now you
>     want us to violate this concept for compatibility to Oracle's
>     misbehaviour? No, thanks!

So you do see a difference between SET and DROP TABLE because the second
is a utility command. OK, I'll buy that, but my point was different.

My point was that we don't match Oracle for DROP TABLE, so why is
matching for SET so important?

-- 
  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