Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have updated the TODO to: > > o Abort all or commit all SET changes made in an aborted transaction > > I don't think our current behavior is defended by anyone. > > Hiroshi seems to like it ... > > However, "commit SETs even after an error" is most certainly NOT > acceptable. It's not even sensible --- what if the SETs themselves > throw errors, or are depending on the results of failed non-SET > commands; will you try to commit them anyway? > > It seems to me that the choices we realistically have are > > (a) leave the behavior the way it is > > (b) cause all SETs in an aborted transaction to roll back.
I disagree. You commit all the SET's you can, even if in aborted transactions. If they throw an error, or rely on a previous non-SET that aborted, oh well. That is what some are asking for. -- 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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
