Re: Vote on SET in aborted transaction

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, would people please vote on how to handle SET in an aborted
> transaction?  This vote will allow us to resolve the issue and move
> forward if needed.
> 
> In the case of:
> 
>     SET x=1;
>     BEGIN;
>     SET x=2;
>     query_that_aborts_transaction;
>     SET x=3;
>     COMMIT;
> 
> at the end, should 'x' equal:
>     
>     1 - All SETs are rolled back in aborted transaction
>     2 - SETs are ignored after transaction abort
>     3 - All SETs are honored in aborted transaction
>     ? - Have SETs vary in behavior depending on variable
> 
> Our current behavior is 2.

1 makes the most sense to me. I think it should be consistent for all 
SET variables.

Joe