On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:20:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think the pattern is and should be different for toplevel > > transaction control commands than for other things. If you issue a > > BEGIN, we want it to end up that you're definitely in a transaction at > > that point, and if you issue a COMMIT or ROLLBACK or ABORT, we want > > you to definitely be out of a transaction after that. This is > > important for reasons discussed on Andrew's thread about pre-commit > > triggers just today. > > > > The same considerations don't apply elsewhere; the user has made a > > mistake, and there's no particular reason not to throw an ERROR. We > > could throw a WARNING or NOTICE and pretend like things are OK, but > > there doesn't seem to be much point, certainly not enough to justify > > changing long-established behavior. > > OK, what I am hearing you say is that we should change ABORT from NOTICE > to WARNING, leave SAVEPOINT/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT as WARNING (so all > transaction control commands are warnings), and leave the new SET > commands as ERRORs. Works for me.
Sorry, even I am getting confused. SAVEPOINT/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT stay as ERROR, so effectively only top-level transaction control commands BEGIN WORK/ABORT/COMMIT are WARNINGS. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers