Re: Feature discussion: Should syntax errors abort a transaction?

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com>wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 12:18 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
> > On 2012-06-19, Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > And we are talking about interractive psql breaking transaction because
> > > of syntax error - almost always this is a one time typo. I'd prefere it
> > > to be a bit more "sloopy", then deployed SQL application (e.g.
> > > non-interactive session).
> >
> > possibly you could program keyboard macros to handle savepoints to
> > have an easy way to recover from these errors, but if you're working on a
>
> Yes, but again. In my own psql usage, it goes like this: "this is a
> simple and easy SQL, most of it was cut/paste anyway .... what could
> possibly go wrong .... ups". But it goes wrong in less then every 20th
> or 100th time, less then once in a few months. So i don't realy feel
> like pushing somebody into a development effort, that woud just slightly
> enhance psql comfort of usage. I most certainly want even be cooking any
> macros, as .... I would forget to use it when it could be of some help.

> My comment on this thread was mearly to object, that a request to allow
> maintaining transaction state despite syntax error is "obviusly wrong".
>
> > busy database keeping a transaction open whislt you think about syntax
> > is going to cost perfromance for the other users.
>
> And this is a really good point - although I do know my schemas and I
> can choose appropriate moment for long hand-opened transation, mistakes
> happen (well, this whole thread is about mistakes :)
>

Additionally, I would point out that the times I have gotten into trouble
with long-running transactions delaying other users it has been functioning
queries which updated lots of rows unexpectedly slowly, not syntax errors
;-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers