| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction? |
| Date: | 2012-06-19 06:20:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4867.1340086857@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I've been working in psql a lot recently, and have started to wonder why
> statements with syntax errors or other problems that render them
> unexecutable terminate the transaction.
Well, the obvious reason is that it's hard to tell what the user meant,
so bailing is the safest response.
> I understand why statements that raise errors during their execution
> terminate a transaction,
So you're suggesting that "SELECT 1/0;" should terminate a transaction,
but "SELECT 1//0;" should not? How about "ROLBACK;"? It gets pretty
squishy pretty fast when you try to decide which sorts of errors are
more important than others.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Schwarzer | 2012-06-19 06:34:52 | Re: How to include Tablefunc as an extension |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-06-19 02:32:46 | Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction? |