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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 ? |