Re: [GENERAL] AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS

Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > Jose Soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com> writes:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Interbase, Oracle,Informix,Solid,Ms-Access,DB2:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > connect hygea.gdb;
> > > create table temp(a int);
> > > insert into temp values (1);
> > > insert into temp values (1000000000000000000000000000000000);
> > > commit;
> > > select * from temp;
> >
> > > arithmetic exception, numeric overflow, or string truncation
> >
> > > A
> > > ===========
> > > 1
> >
> > > I would like to know what the Standard says and who is in the rigth path
> > > PostgreSQL or the others, considering the two examples reported below.
> >
> > I think those other guys are unquestionably failing to
> > conform to SQL92.
> > 6.10 general rule 3.a says
>
> All others also throw an error for this statement, and thus conform.
> As you can see from the select only the first row is inserted.
> I think the numeric is only an example of an error, it could also be
> any other error, like "duplicate key" or the like.
>
> > ......
> >
> > and 3.3.4.1 says
> >
> > The phrase "an exception condition is raised:", followed by the
> > name of a condition, is used in General Rules and elsewhere to
> > indicate that the execution of a statement is unsuccessful, ap-
> > plication of General Rules, other than those of Subclause 12.3,
> > "<procedure>", and Subclause 20.1, "<direct SQL statement>", may
> > be terminated, diagnostic information is to be made available,
> > and execution of the statement is to have no effect on SQL-data
> or
>
> Note here, that they say "the statement", which does not say anything about
> other statements in the same transaction.
>
> > schemas. The effect on <target specification>s and SQL descriptor
> > areas of an SQL-statement that terminates with an exception
> condi-
> > tion, unless explicitly defined by this International Standard,
> is
> > implementation-dependent.
> >
> > I see no way that allowing the transaction to commit after an overflow
> > can be called consistent with the spec.
>
> Of course it can not commit this single statement that was in error.
> All he wants is to commit all other statements, before and after the
> error statement inside this same transaction.
>

Isn't the intention of a transaction that it is atomic, i.e. either all
statements pass or none of them? (see section 5.4 in the standard).

Wim