Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?
Date: 2009-07-25 13:06:44
Message-ID: 9837222c0907250606la9ab4fk425b0d0984703a3@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> When you run a file with psql -1/--single-transaction, and a command fails,
> you get bombarded with
>
> ERROR:  current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
> transaction block
>
> for the rest of the file.
>

That would certainly be useful.

Personally I'd prefer it to default to that always, and not just in
-1, but that would break way too many old things I'm afraid...

/Magnus

> Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-07-25 13:15:39
Subject: Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-07-25 13:00:18
Subject: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group