Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > ??? What do you mean by > > > o Some SETs are honored in an aborted transaction (current) > > > ? > > > Is the current state different from > > > o All SETs are honored in an aborted transaction > > > ? > > > > In the case of: > > > > BEGIN WORK; > > SET x=1; > > bad query that aborts transaction; > > SET x=2; > > COMMIT WORK; > > > > Only the first SET is done, so at the end, x = 1. If all SET's were > > honored, x = 2. If no SETs in an aborted transaction were honored, x > > would equal whatever it was before the BEGIN WORK above. > > IMHO > o No SETs are honored in an aborted transaction(current) > > The first SET isn't done in an aborted transaction.
Well, yes, when I say aborted transaction, I mean the entire transaction, not just the part after the abort happens. All non-SET commands in the transaction are rolled back already. I can't think of a good argument for our current behavior. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(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
