Re: Does error within transaction imply restarting it?

Ed Loehr wrote:
>
> Haroldo Stenger wrote:
> > 1. A transaction begins
> > 2. LOCK TABLE XYZ; is issued.
> > 3. Since table XYZ doesn't exist, the backend gives error.
> > 4. A CREATE TABLE XYZ(field char); is issued.
> > 5. The backend says that it is in abort state, and that all queries will
> > be ignored until commit, or end of transaction.
> >
> > Is this behaviour unavoidable?
>
> This is problematic (and arguably non-standard) handling of an error within
> a transaction, and is a problem for precisely the reason you experienced.
> At last check, it appeared some of the key developers might have been
> coming around to that understanding, though I'm not sure it has made its
> way into any kind of action plan.

Thanks, I feel so well of pointing to something worth worrying about.
I've been asking elsewhere, whether other DBMSs, behave like or unlike
PostgreSQL. I seems that other DBMSs, don't care about erroneous
statements within a transaction. Now, I have several paths to follow: 1)
Hacking the backend ;-) 2) Hacking the JDBC driver; 3) Hacking GeneXus'
generated code. In such hipotetic hacks, I could force not issuing the
LOCKs, ignoring'em by the backend, ignoring 'em by the JDBC driver,
making'em conditional within the driver, etc. Other ideas, are welcome
too.

How can I motivate key developers to make their way into an action plan?

Cheers,
Haroldo.