Re: Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction?

From: Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction?
Date: 2012-06-20 08:13:59
Message-ID: 1340180039.28999.6.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 00:24 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
[------------------]
>
> I guess it seems to me that I would not object to a new option for
> transaction behavior where one could do something like SET TRANSACTION
> INTERACTIVE; and have no errors abort the transaction at all (explicit
> commit or rollback required) but I would complain loudly if this were
> to be the default, and I don't see a real need for it.

Awesome!

Or rather: "BEGIN [INTERACTIVE];" (mind the <TAB>) for a one shot
interaction.

-R

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dr. F. Lee 2012-06-20 09:51:13 View parsing
Previous Message Philip Couling 2012-06-20 07:55:07 Re: Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction?