| From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "James B(dot) Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT or UPDATE |
| Date: | 2009-04-07 00:49:07 |
| Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F8944154702962120@postal.corporate.connx.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James B. Byrne [mailto:byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:43 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] INSERT or UPDATE
>
>
> On Mon, April 6, 2009 20:23, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> >
> > If a transaction involves rows where some succeed and some fail,
> > all will roll back. If that is the desired behavior, or if all
> > operations are singleton, then you won't see any problems.
> >
>
> Do I understand correctly that this means that even if the function
> "handles" a failed insert then if the function occurs inside a
> transaction then that transaction fails and is rolled back
> regardless?
It depends on how it is handled. You could certainly (for instance) use
a cursor and perform the operations one by one.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ljb | 2009-04-07 01:52:05 | Anyone testing changes to libpq/bcc32.mak? |
| Previous Message | James B. Byrne | 2009-04-07 00:42:47 | Re: INSERT or UPDATE |