Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-04-29T15:33:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its 
> > environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should 
> > be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found 
> > it.  If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are
> done outside transaction.
> 
> If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own
> transaction. 
> 
> Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would
> really confuse the user.

Agreed, very non-intuitive.  And can you imagine how many applications
we would break.

-- 
  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