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