Re: timeout implementation issues

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. I don't think it's a 
*should be* kind of thing and we shouldn't stick 
to it any longer.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue