On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 18:20, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Rather than dismissing this out of hand, try to look at what it *does* > > enable. It allows developers to tune specific queries without having to > > restore values afterwards. Values or settings which may change from > > version to version, so end up embedding time bombs into applications. > > I think it's a great idea.
So do I. And I also think that this will solve the original issue, which iirc was rolling back SET TIMEOUT at ABORT. If we have LOCAL SET, there is no need to have any other mechanism for ROLLING BACK/COMMITing SET's - SET and DML can be kept totally separate, as they should be based on fact that SET does not directly affect data. -------------- 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
