Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > OK, we have three possibilities: > > > > o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction > > o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction > > o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current) > > > > I think the problem is our current behavior. I don't think anyone can > > say our it is correct (only honor SET before the transaction reaches > > abort state). Whether we want the first or second is the issue, I think. > > I think the current state is not that bad at least > is better than the first.
Oops does the first mean rolling back the variables on abort ? If so I made a mistake. The current is better than the second. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
