| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: pre-commit triggers |
| Date: | 2013-11-19 16:38:24 |
| Message-ID: | 10592.1384879104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'd expect this to lead to a failed transaction block,
>> or at least some sort of notice that the transaction itself
>> has been rolled back.
> Ending up in a failed transaction block would be wrong. If the user
> does a BEGIN, a bunch of stuff, and a COMMIT, they're entitled to
> assume without checking that they are no longer in a transaction
> block.
Absolutely. There are plenty of ways to fail at COMMIT already,
eg deferred foreign key constraints. This shouldn't act any
different.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-19 16:38:33 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 16:37:25 | Re: Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |