Re: Unexpected *ABORT STATE*

wsheldah(at)lexmark(dot)com wrote:
>
> I think that for that to behave as you would like, each executed line would have
> to be its own transaction nested inside the larger transaction that you
> explicitly declared. An error on one line would cause an implicit rollback of
> everything done as a result of executing that one line, success would implicitly
> commit that line, although it wouldn't be fully committed until you reach the
> end of the outer explicit block. Does that sound like the behaviour you want?

Yes, that is what I was thinking. To a user it would seem like it
should be easy because we are used to using psql outside transactions
and if there is an error then the statement simply has no effect.

> If so, then you'll need to wait at least until Postgresql supports nested
> transactions before this would even be a possibility.

That's what I was afraid of. I wasn't sure how things were done on the
backend.

--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com