Re: Error on failed COMMIT

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
Cc: Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "Haumacher, Bernhard" <haui(at)haumacher(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Date: 2020-02-25 06:45:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmobJQFJxi=+73OCuy4B3f0KaYV-BoPxu3cMJ4V_COpSzLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> wrote:
> Fair enough. What I meant to say was that the driver isn't in the business of providing different semantics than the server provides.

Still don't agree. The server doesn't make any decision about what
semantics the driver has to provide. The driver can do whatever it
wants. If what it does makes users sad, then maybe it ought to do
something different.

Now, of course, it's also true that if what the server does makes
users sad, maybe the server should do something different. But I think
you're vastly underestimating the likely impact on other users and
drivers of making this change. That is a guess, and like any guess,
may be wrong. But it is still what I think.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-02-25 07:00:30 Re: False failure during repeated windows build.
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2020-02-25 05:58:43 Re: Error on failed COMMIT