On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Rafal Pietrak <ra...@zorro.isa-geek.com>wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 12:18 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > > On 2012-06-19, Rafal Pietrak <ra...@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > > > > > And we are talking about interractive psql breaking transaction because > > > of syntax error - almost always this is a one time typo. I'd prefere it > > > to be a bit more "sloopy", then deployed SQL application (e.g. > > > non-interactive session). > > > > possibly you could program keyboard macros to handle savepoints to > > have an easy way to recover from these errors, but if you're working on a > > Yes, but again. In my own psql usage, it goes like this: "this is a > simple and easy SQL, most of it was cut/paste anyway .... what could > possibly go wrong .... ups". But it goes wrong in less then every 20th > or 100th time, less then once in a few months. So i don't realy feel > like pushing somebody into a development effort, that woud just slightly > enhance psql comfort of usage. I most certainly want even be cooking any > macros, as .... I would forget to use it when it could be of some help. > My comment on this thread was mearly to object, that a request to allow > maintaining transaction state despite syntax error is "obviusly wrong". > > > busy database keeping a transaction open whislt you think about syntax > > is going to cost perfromance for the other users. > > And this is a really good point - although I do know my schemas and I > can choose appropriate moment for long hand-opened transation, mistakes > happen (well, this whole thread is about mistakes :) > Additionally, I would point out that the times I have gotten into trouble with long-running transactions delaying other users it has been functioning queries which updated lots of rows unexpectedly slowly, not syntax errors ;-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers
