From: | Jan Bakuwel <jan(dot)bakuwel(at)greenpeace(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block |
Date: | 2011-12-30 04:25:22 |
Message-ID: | 4EFD3D32.9060902@greenpeace.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hi,
Maybe there is a simple solution for PostgreSQL behaviour that is
annoying me...
I've got users making updates to a master table and a number of detail
tables. All changes to the master record and related detail records are
encapsulated in a transaction so everything can be rolled back if
necessary and also to lock those master and related records for the user
making the changes.
When they do something that violates a constraint (for example adding a
duplicate detail record where that is not allowed), PostgreSQL aborts
the transaction. What I would much rather have is that PostgreSQL
returns an error but does not cancel the transaction as it's perfectly
OK (from a user's point of view) to try to do something that violates a
constraint.
What annoys me is that I don't think that a constraint violation made by
a user should result in an aborted transaction. There is probably a very
good reason to do that however the logic escapes me...
Of course I can start testing existing values in the database before
accepting them in the user interface but that's putting the horse behind
the cart. I much rather use the constraints at the database level to
tell me a particular update can't be done and do that without loosing
everything else I happened to have done in that transaction until that
point.
Any suggestions?
Jan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Johnston | 2011-12-30 04:44:00 | Re: Current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block |
Previous Message | Tim Landscheidt | 2011-12-30 01:07:39 | Getting a list of a table's attributes that are sortable sorted by uniqueness |