| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh(at)mecomb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] How to stop implicit rollback on certain errors? |
| Date: | 1999-12-09 01:23:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.19991209092335.008f62c0@pop.mecomb.po.my |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 01:18 AM 09-12-1999 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Seriously, why do you use a transaction, when you don't want any errors
>caught? Transactions are defined as everything succeeds or nothing goes.
>If you want update to succeed anyhow, put it in it's own transaction
>(i.e., commit before it).
I want errors caught, most errors abort everything but some errors I want
to try a different update instead, if that doesn't work then only rollback
everything.
>> I guess that's expected, and I should insert big years using another less
>> ambiguous format. What is the recommended format?
>
>The safest way would be to set a date format with SET DATESTYLE TO and use
>that, possibly assisted by library formatting routines.
OK.
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Drillich | 1999-12-09 03:08:05 | pg_typemgr ; -) [was Re: [GENERAL] no primary key on self designed type] |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-12-09 00:18:48 | Re: [GENERAL] How to stop implicit rollback on certain errors? |