On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > As committed, DISCARD ALL does everything but cannot be issued inside a
> > transaction block.
> > I'd like to propose that DISCARD ALL also issue a ROLLBACK command if it
> > is issued from within a transaction block.
> That was *intentional* to prevent mistakes.
I understand; I'm challenging that intention. Neil's original commit
message said that was "intended to catch programmer mistakes" and that
such use is "probably unintended".
If the developer has attempted to issue it in the wrong place, he's
probably also forgot to handle errors correctly, i.e. ROLLBACK then
If we care about helping the developer we should make the command end
the transaction block if one exists then issue it. Less code for the
developer, less mistakes.
> Somebody who wants the
> above behavior can send "ROLLBACK; DISCARD ALL".
...which generates an ERROR if no transaction is in progress and fills
the log needlessly.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-10-04 14:53:48|
|Subject: Re: uh-oh, dugong failing again|
|Previous:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2007-10-04 14:47:50|
|Subject: Re: Not *quite* there on ecpg fixes|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-04 19:26:53|
|Subject: Re: initdb of regression test failed. |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-10-04 14:29:00|
|Subject: Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |