On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 01:01:07AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I didn't say "transaction specific". I said that if you do a SET inside
> > a transaction block, and then the transaction is aborted, the effects of
> > the SET ought to roll back along with everything else you did inside
> > that transaction block. I'm not seeing what the argument is against
> > this.
>
> I consider SET variables metadata that are not affected by transactions.
> I should be able to change my mind about my session preferences in the
> middle of a transaction, no matter what happens to the data in it. Say
I agree with Peter. For example I have multi-encoding client program
that changing client-encoding in the middle of transaction and this
change not depend on transaction. And the other thing: I have DB
driver in an program there is not possible do SQL query outsite
transaction.
Is there some problem implement "SET ... ON ROLLBACK UNSET" ?
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
