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.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
In response to
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 |