From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP? |
Date: | 2009-07-25 13:06:44 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c0907250606la9ab4fk425b0d0984703a3@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> When you run a file with psql -1/--single-transaction, and a command fails,
> you get bombarded with
>
> ERROR: current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
> transaction block
>
> for the rest of the file.
>
That would certainly be useful.
Personally I'd prefer it to default to that always, and not just in
-1, but that would break way too many old things I'm afraid...
/Magnus
> Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-25 13:15:39 | Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-07-25 13:00:18 | Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP? |