Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Shouldn't that be back-patched?
> 
> > Uh, well, it is going to change the behavior of back branches, and
> > because we only got one report of the bug which has existed since 8.2, I
> > didn't want to risk it.  Should I?
> 
> I would say that the odds of the initial BEGIN failing are negligible
> anyway, so what it boils down to is whether a failure on the final
> COMMIT needs to be reported.  Seems to me the answer is "yes", and the
> only reason we haven't had more complaints is that not too many people
> have actually relied on the exit status.  Anyone who *does* look at the
> exit status is not going to be happy with the current behavior.
> 
> In short: it's a bug, fix it.

OK, done.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  PG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do

In response to

• Re: Re: incorrect exit code from psql with single transaction + violation of deferred FK constraint at 2010-03-09 00:55:27 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2010-03-09 01:33:42
	Subject: lock mode for ControlFileLock which pg_start_backup uses
Previous:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2010-03-09 01:06:22
	Subject: Re: machine-readable pg_controldata?

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:	From: Helena Biander	Date: 2010-03-09 08:40:33
	Subject: BUG #5366: Stackbuilder doesn't work
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-03-09 00:55:27
	Subject: Re: Re: incorrect exit code from psql with single transaction + violation of deferred FK constraint