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

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:36:09AM -0700, felix(at)crowfix(dot)com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:25:24AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > There is also the case of dynamically generated sql statements based on user selection... being syntax or not, I would never want half job done. Thia is the purpose of transactions: or all or nothing...
> >
> > This this this, and again, this. Imagine:
> >
> > begin;
> > insert into tableb selcet * from tableb;
> > truncate tableb;
> > commit;
> >
> > What should happen when we get to the error on the second line? Keep
> > going? Boom, data gone because of a syntax error.
>
> I've been lurking, and maybe I should go back to that :-) but I think you misunderstand. The idea is not to ignore or second-guess typoes, but to report them without affecting the transaction, and only do this in interactive sessions.
>
> Personally, I like the idea of BEGIN INTERACTIVE, but note I do not offer to do the work.

Looks like I should go back to lurking, and do better at it :-(

The discussion began about differentiatng typoes and other errors, which is clearly not easy or obvious, and something that has always frustrated me when I find programs which try to do so. Then I saw the idea of BEGIN INTERACTIVE and lost sight of the discussion.

My apoligies for stepping in so badly.

--
... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / felix(at)crowfix(dot)com
GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o