From: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transaction status in default psql prompt? |
Date: | 2003-09-03 21:44:21 |
Message-ID: | 200309031444.21458.darcy@wavefire.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 03 September 2003 13:06, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 19:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > What do people think about adding the transaction status indicator to the
> > default psql prompt, so it'd look something like this:
> >
> > peter=# begin;
> > BEGIN
> > peter*=# foo;
> > ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo" at character 1
> > peter!=# rollback;
> > ROLLBACK
> > peter=#
> >
> > I think many people would find that useful.
>
> Great idea. Would it be worth while adding the depth with the
> assumption that sub-transactions will appear someday?
I think this is a good idea as well. While we are on this, has there
ever/recently been any thought to not making transactions marked "failed" in
the event of a syntax error (given we don't have nested transactions), this
becomes most annoying when having to do a large manual set of updates and one
gets sloppy with typing?
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-03 22:07:47 | Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-03 21:32:27 | Re: Using oids |