Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > 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. > > The second means all SET's are rolled back on abort.
I see. BTW what varibles are rolled back on abort currently ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
