On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own
> transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are
> rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any
> non-SET"?
Not really, I don't think.
But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being
rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such
as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC