On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 03:39:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We are considering allowing COMMIT IGNORE ABORT for scripts that want to > > do a subtransaction, but don't care if it fails, and because it is a > > script, they can't test the return value to send ROLLBACK: > > While we clearly want this functionality, I tend to agree with Barry > that COMMIT IGNORE ABORT (and the other variants that have been floated) > is a horrid, confusing name for it. I would suggest using END with some > modifier, instead. Perhaps > > END [ WORK | TRANSACTION ] [ IGNORE ERRORS ] > > END doesn't so directly imply that you are trying to commit a failed > transaction.
The problem with END is how about executing it inside a PL/pgSQL function. Can we distinguish it from plpgsql's END? Also, COMMITing an aborted main transaction is the same as ENDing it; and in fact, it's the same as ROLLBACK. Why is it more confusing for a subtransaction to behave the same? I agree that the grammar I proposed is wrong. I guess I can ask for two words and then strcmp() them to "ignore errors"? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La naturaleza, tan frágil, tan expuesta a la muerte... y tan viva" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
