Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > I don't think this is  *all* *should be* or *all
> > or nothing* kind of thing. If a SET variable has
> > its reason, it would behave in its own right.
> 
> Well, we could provide some kind of escape hatch to let the behavior
> vary from one variable to the next.  But can you give any specific
> examples?  Which SET variables should not roll back on error?

It seems veeery dangerous to conclude that SET *should* 
roll back even if there's no *should not* roll back case.
There could be no *should not* roll back case because
a user could set the variable as he likes in the next
transaction. 
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/