| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)aol(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Zenz <robert(dot)zenz(at)sibvisions(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Information on savepoint requirement within transctions |
| Date: | 2018-01-30 15:29:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbpaVxZiSRrRGo+6b3+KD37KUk3LC2_fgs0vH8OHz0cXw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)aol(dot)com>
wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure about the terminology here, though, because the Transaction
> > Tutorial (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/tutorial-
> transactions.html)
> > speaks of "aborted" transactions, while you use the term "failed" here.
>
> Purely from a user point of view, shouldn't "aborted" mean a ROLLBACK
> issues by the application
> due to a violation of a business rule, whereas "failed" should mean as a
> ROLLBACK issues by
> PG due to constraint violation or like disk full or whatever.
>
I was using failed because I hadn't done sufficient research and wasn't
aware of "aborted" being used in this context. The error in psql itself
says "current transaction is aborted ..."
There is no distinction as to why the statements failed and the transaction
is in an aborted state as far as a transaction is concerned.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | btober@computer.org | 2018-01-30 15:34:12 | Re: Alter view with dependence without drop view! |
| Previous Message | Rakesh Kumar | 2018-01-30 15:25:09 | Re: Information on savepoint requirement within transctions |