| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK |
| Date: | 2014-12-31 15:20:48 |
| Message-ID: | 6763.1420039248@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just
>> definitional instability.
>>
>> If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to back-patch,
>> though, and perhaps your client's complaint counts as that.
> I got caught by this with ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on 9.3 just this afternoon
> before remembering this thread. So there's a field report :-)
> +0.75 for backpatching (It's hard to imagine someone relying on the bad
> behaviour, but you never know).
It seems like there's a consensus in favor of back-patching this change,
so I'll go ahead and do that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-31 15:26:07 | Re: ltree gist index errors and fill factor questions |
| Previous Message | Mike Broers | 2014-12-31 15:20:07 | Re: ltree gist index errors and fill factor questions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-31 15:23:25 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-12-31 15:02:07 | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |