From: | "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Information on savepoint requirement within transctions |
Date: | 2018-01-31 18:09:28 |
Message-ID: | 20180131180928.zt5k2lykmkox5fts@hjp.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2018-01-30 08:40:11 +0000, Robert Zenz wrote:
> On 30.01.2018 03:07, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > So, my first pass at this.
>
> Nice, thank you.
>
> > + These are of particular use for client software to use when executing
> > + user-supplied SQL statements and want to provide try/catch behavior
> > + where failures are ignored.
>
> Personally, I'd reword this to something like this:
>
> > These are of particular use for client software which is executing
> > user-supplied SQL statements and wants to provide try/catch behavior
> > with the ability to continue to use the transaction after a failure.
>
> Or maybe something like this:
>
> > These are of particular use for client software which requires
> > fine-grained support over failure behavior within a transaction.
> > They allow to provide a try/catch behavior with the ability
> > to continue to use a transaction after a failure.
I agree. The goal isn't to ignore the error but to handle it.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | management tools.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-01-31 18:18:28 | Re: Issue with WAL logs temporary not replaying |
Previous Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2018-01-31 18:06:40 | Re: Information on savepoint requirement within transctions |