Re: Error on failed COMMIT

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Haumacher, Bernhard" <haui(at)haumacher(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Date: 2020-02-14 20:11:42
Message-ID: CADK3HHJrJecqy4gCLOi3fuk9rd114rQmZvbP0KzHhm-dOLRj=Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 15:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> writes:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 14:37, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I'm not trying to deny that you might find some other server behavior
> >> more convenient. You might. And, to Vik's original point, it might be
> >> more compliant with the spec, too. But since changing that would have
> >> a pretty big blast radius at this stage, I think it's worth trying to
> >> make things work as well as they can with the server behavior that we
> >> already have. And I don't really see anything preventing the driver
> >> from doing that technically. I don't understand the idea that the
> >> driver is somehow not allowed to notice the command tag.
>
> > We have the same blast radius.
> > I have offered to make the behaviour requested dependent on a
> configuration
> > parameter but apparently this is not sufficient.
>
> Nope, that is absolutely not happening.

I should have been more specific.

I offered to make the behaviour in the JDBC driver dependent on a
configuration parameter

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks

>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-02-14 20:19:50 Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-02-14 20:07:33 Re: Error on failed COMMIT