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