On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote: > For this reason, I propose that a transaction should "inherit" its > environment, and that all changes EXCEPT for those affecting tuples should > be rolled back after completion, leaving the environment the way we found > it. If you need the environment changed, do it OUTSIDE the transaction.
Unfortunately there is no such time in postgresql where commands are done outside transaction. If you don't issue BEGIN; then each command is implicitly run in its own transaction. Rolling each command back unless it is in implicit transaction would really confuse the user. > I would argue that the rollback on failure / don't rollback on completion > is actually the worse possible way to handle this, because, again, this > isn't about data, it's about environment. And I don't think things inside > a transaction should be mucking with the environment around them when > they're done. That would assume nested transactions which we don't have yet. --------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
