On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > 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. > > Agreed, very non-intuitive. And can you imagine how many applications > we would break.
Since there is obviously no defined standard for how a SET should be treated within a transaction ... who cares? God, how many changes have we made in the past that "break applications" but did them anyway? Just as a stupid question here ... but, why do we wrap single queries into a transaction anyway? IMHO, a transaction is meant to tell the backend to remember this sequence of events, so that if it fails, you can roll it back ... with a single INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, why 'auto-wrapper' it with a BEGIN/END? ---------------------------(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