Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200204250206.g3P26AJ16664@saturn.janwieck.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction (Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > Sure should it! You gave an example for the need to roll > > back, because > > otherwise you would end up with an invalid > > search path "foo". > > What's wrong with it ? The insert command after *rollback* > would fail. It seems the right thing to me. Otherwise > the insert command would try to append the data of the > table t1 to itself. The insert command is for copying > schema1.t1 to foo.t1 in case the previous create schema > command suceeded. Wrong about your entire example is that the rollback is sheer wrong placed to make up your case ;-p There is absolutely no need to put the insert outside of the transaction that is intended to copy schema1.t1 to foo.t1. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: