From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | hstenger(at)ieee(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Now PostgreSQL recovers from errors within trns |
Date: | 2000-07-31 17:05:12 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000731100512.013b0140@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 02:10 PM 7/31/00 -0300, hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy writes:
>> > My goal is to make the backend accept erroneous commands, not falling
>> > in *ABORT STATE*, but rolling back automatically, & continue accepting
>> > commands.
>>
>> The way you're doing it, you might as well just not use transaction
>> blocks at all. I don't think wiping out the effects of all preceding
>> commands within the transaction counts as "recovering from an error".
>
>Ok, maybe I exagerated, but kind of solves my problem. GeneXus, my CASE tool,
>will send begin/commit pairs, so I must 'recover' automatically. I aimed
>DB2-like behaviour, which I was told, aborts on errors within
transactions, but
>remains in a runnable state. Don't you consider it valueable whatsoever?
Well, Postgresql's behavior isn't SQL92 compliant, but neither is the
behavior you want. I far prefer the current non-standard behavior.
Eventually,
of course, PG should conform to SQL92.
GeneXus should be catching the error and issuing a rollback if that's
the behavior it expects.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | hstenger | 2000-07-31 17:10:16 | Re: Now PostgreSQL recovers from errors within trns |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-31 15:08:03 | Re: Now PostgreSQL recovers from errors within trns |