Re: Error on failed COMMIT

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tony Locke <tlocke(at)tlocke(dot)org(dot)uk>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Haumacher, Bernhard" <haui(at)haumacher(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Date: 2021-01-25 16:29:10
Message-ID: CADK3HHJYjWwHL6AFtca48kgb1Agd5EgjMzQ2yuVHzsYaY_+Cxg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Apologies, I should have checked again to make sure the patch applied.

This one does and passes tests.

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 09:09, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> wrote:

> Rebased against head
>
> Here's my summary of the long thread above.
>
> This change is in keeping with the SQL spec.
>
> There is an argument (Tom) that says that this will annoy more people than
> it will please. I presume this is due to the fact that libpq behaviour will
> change.
>
> As the author of the JDBC driver, and I believe I speak for other driver
> (NPGSQL for one) authors as well that have implemented the protocol I would
> argue that the current behaviour is more annoying.
>
> We currently have to keep state and determine if COMMIT actually failed or
> it ROLLED BACK. There are a number of async drivers that would also benefit
> from not having to keep state in the session.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Cramer
> www.postgres.rocks
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 11:53, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 16:26, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 18:14, Andrew Dunstan <
>>> andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/4/20 12:19 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>>> > Attached is the rebased patch for consideration.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit sad this has been hanging around so long without attention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The previous discussion seems to give the patch a clean bill of health
>>>> for most/all of the native drivers. Are there any implications for libpq
>>>> based drivers such as DBD::Pg and psycopg2? How about for ecpg?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>>>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached is a rebased patch with fixes for the isolation tests
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Dave Cramer
>>> www.postgres.rocks
>>>
>>

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Throw-error-and-rollback-on-a-failed-transaction-ins.patch application/octet-stream 95.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-01-25 16:56:13 cleaning up a few CLOG-related things
Previous Message Zhihong Yu 2021-01-25 16:05:26 Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies