Re: in failed sql transaction

On 9/25/06, Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> wrote:
>
> In this case
> PostgreSQL does the right thing; something went wrong, queries after the
> error may very well depend on that data - you can't rely on the current
> state. And it's what the SQL specs say too, of course...
>
> [1] I'm not trying to imply that what PostgreSQL does is (in general).
> --
>

In an automated/programmatic access to the database, this might be
desirable; but when there's someone manually doing some activity, it sure
does get to one's nerves if the transaction till now was a long one.
Instead, the operator would love to edit just that one query and fire again!

Also, in automated/programmatic access, the programs are supposed to
catch the error and rollback/correct on their own.

I sure like PG's following of the standards, but usability should not be
lost sight of.

Best regards,

--
gurjeet(at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com