From: | "Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Ochs" <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: problems with transaction blocks |
Date: | 2004-01-07 06:19:43 |
Message-ID: | 011f01c3d4f0$277abaa0$9100053d@winxp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Transactions are atomic. What you are asking to do violates the whole
concept of a transaction.
You can, however, do these inserts outside of the transaction block.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Ochs" <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:52 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] problems with transaction blocks
> I want to do a series of inserts within a single transaction block, but
with
> postgresql if one insert fails, the whole block is aborted. Is there any
> way to get around this behavior so that postgresql won't abort the entire
> transaction if a single insert returns an error?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-07 06:46:22 | Re: SPI question (or not): trying to read from Large Objects from within a function |
Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2004-01-07 06:10:23 | OT: Copyright, was Re: Paypal WAS: PostgreSQL speakers needed for OSCON |