| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |
| Date: | 2005-04-26 14:28:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1752.1114525733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
> To reiterate my opinion, I think the behavior should be the same
> for interactive and non-interactive sessions. Not only will it
> prevent nasty surprises, but unless we make a third 'setting',
> there will be no way to enable this in non-interactive scripts,
> which is something that I would want to be able to do.
I'm finding it hard to visualize a non-interactive script making
any good use of such a setting. Without a way to test whether
you got an error or not, it would amount to an "ignore errors
within transactions" mode, which seems a pretty bad idea.
Can you show a plausible use-case for such a thing?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-04-26 14:30:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-04-26 14:05:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-04-26 14:30:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-04-26 14:05:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |