| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rollback on Error |
| Date: | 2004-09-15 13:57:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3119.1095256661@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> writes:
>>> If that is not the case, I don't understand why core seems to be
>>> against a mode (GUC), where an implicit savepoint is generated before
>>> each statement so that "rollback of the last statement" would be possible.
>>
>> Because we learned our lesson with the ill-fated autocommit GUC
>> variable. You can't have fundamental transactional semantics depending
>> on the phase of the moon, but from the point of view of application
>> code, anything that can be flipped as easily as a GUC variable is an
>> unknown.
> On the other hand, the scenario of a psql option (read: I have given up the
> idea of a backend implementation) to rollback only last statement on error
> is quite different.
Sure (and we already have one for autocommit). But I thought you were
asking about a backend implementation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-15 14:08:47 | Re: Checking regex pattern validity |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-15 13:55:00 | Re: fedora core2 pgaccess |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Robinson | 2004-09-15 13:59:28 | Re: Statement parsing problem ? |
| Previous Message | Chris Dunlop | 2004-09-15 13:43:47 | Statement parsing problem ? |