| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2021-01-26 17:34:34 |
| Message-ID: | d600c825-4f5c-b473-f67b-40defa4b37c4@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/26/21 6:20 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> After thinking some more about it, I think that COMMIT AND CHAIN would have
> to change behavior: if COMMIT throws an error (because the transaction was
> aborted), no new transaction should be started. Everything else seems fishy:
> the statement fails, but still starts a new transaction?
The standard is not clear (to me) on what exactly should happen here.
It says that if a <commit statement> is not successful then a <rollback
statement> is implied, but I don't see it say anything about whether the
AND CHAIN should be propagated too.
My vote is that COMMIT AND CHAIN should become ROLLBACK AND NO CHAIN.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2021-01-26 17:37:47 | Re: Error on failed COMMIT |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2021-01-26 17:25:57 | Re: Error on failed COMMIT |