Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
> --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching
>> material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency
>> would be warranted here.

> Now that i read it i remember a client complaining about this some time
> ago. I forgot about it, but i think there's value in it to backpatch.

Hm. Last night I wrote the attached draft patch, which I was intending
to apply to HEAD only. The argument against back-patching is basically
that this might change the interpretation of scripts that had been
accepted silently before. For example
\set ECHO_HIDDEN NoExec
will now select "noexec" mode whereas before you silently got "on" mode.
In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just
definitional instability.

If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to back-patch,
though, and perhaps your client's complaint counts as that.

Opinions anyone?

regards, tom lane