On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own > transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are > rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any > non-SET"?
Not really, I don't think. But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back. cjs -- Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
