2013/11/20 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I'd expect this to lead to a failed transaction block, >>> or at least some sort of notice that the transaction itself >>> has been rolled back. > >> Ending up in a failed transaction block would be wrong. If the user >> does a BEGIN, a bunch of stuff, and a COMMIT, they're entitled to >> assume without checking that they are no longer in a transaction >> block. > > Absolutely. There are plenty of ways to fail at COMMIT already, > eg deferred foreign key constraints. This shouldn't act any > different.
Ah OK, I see how that works. Thanks for the explanation. Ian Barwick -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
