Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql
Date: 2005-04-26 15:19:51
Message-ID: 2246.1114528791@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would far rather see people code explicit markers around statements
>> whose failure can be ignored. That is, a script that needs this
>> behavior ought to look like
>>
>> BEGIN;
>> \begin_ignore_error
>> DROP TABLE foo;
>> \end_ignore_error
>> CREATE ...
>> ...
>> COMMIT;

> That's a lot of work.

How so? It's a minuscule extension to the psql patch already coded:
just provide backslash commands to invoke the bits of code already
written.

> In this particular case I would actually like to
> see us provide "DROP IF EXISTS ..." or some such.

That's substantially more work, with substantially less scope of
applicability: it would only solve the issue for DROP.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-04-26 15:46:45 Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-04-26 15:15:35 Re: bitmapscan test, no success, bs is not faster

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2005-04-26 15:40:36 Re: Cleaning up unreferenced table files
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-04-26 15:03:40 Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql