On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> > wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> To achieve the effect Fujii is looking for, we would have to silently drop >>> the connection. That would correctly leave the client not knowing whether >>> the transaction committed or not. >> >> +1 >> >>>> It might be reasonable to COMMIT but also issue a warning message, or >>>> to just close the connection without telling the client what happened, >>>> but sending an error seems poor. >>> >>> Yeah, I guess that would work too, if the client knows to watch out for >>> those warnings. >> >> -1 > > yeah, unless by warning, you meant 'error'.
Well, as mentioned upthread, throwing an error when the transaction is actually committed seems poor. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
