Tom Lane wrote:
>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>>I have added this to the TODO list, with a question mark. Hope this is
>>OK with everyone.
>>
>
>> o Abort SET changes made in aborted transactions (?)
>>
>
>Actually, I was planning to make only search_path act that way, because
>of all the push-back I'd gotten on applying it to other SET variables.
>search_path really *has* to have it, but if there's anyone who agrees
>with me about doing it for all SET vars, they didn't speak up :-(
>
I did and do, strongly. TRANSACTIONS are supposed to leave things as
they were before the BEGIN. It either all happens or it all doesnt'
happen. If you need soemthing inside of a transaction to go
irregardless then it shouldn't be within the transaction.
>regards, tom lane
>