Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > I have updated the TODO to:
> >     o Abort all or commit all SET changes made in an aborted transaction
> > I don't think our current behavior is defended by anyone.
> 
> Hiroshi seems to like it ...

Probably I don't love it. Honestly I don't understand
what the new TODO means exactly.
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.

> However, "commit SETs even after an error" is most certainly NOT
> acceptable. 

What I've meant is that SET commands are out of transactional
control and so the word *commit SETs even after* has no meaning
to me. Basically it's a user's responsisbilty to manage the
errors. He only knows what's to do with the errors.

regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/