Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
Date: 2004-07-10 19:31:03
Message-ID: 19617.1089487863@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> I am not excited about changing the command tag.
>>
>> I was not either to start with, but the more I think about it, the more
>> I think it would be a good idea.

> What tag would we use? ABORT?

No, ROLLBACK, which is what you get when you give the "expected"
command.

regression=# begin;
BEGIN
regression=# select 1/0;
ERROR: division by zero
regression=# abort; -- or rollback;
ROLLBACK

regression=# begin;
BEGIN
regression=# select 1/0;
ERROR: division by zero
regression=# commit;
COMMIT

I think the above is fairly misleading; it would be better to say
ROLLBACK to indicate that we had in fact canceled the transaction.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-07-10 23:31:34 Re: BUG #1189: unbounded string copy in postmaster
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-10 18:44:11 Re: BUG #1188: evaluation order of select seems to be wrong

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-07-10 19:33:14 Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-10 19:23:31 Re: Weird new time zone