Re: [GENERAL] COMMIT after an ERROR?

[J C Lawrence]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 07:13:25 -0700 (PDT) 
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Well, that's difficult.  The spec is very hard to understand about
 that.  I believe we determined that our behavior was very very
 close to complient, but that it does not match the standard
 reading of that section.  

My reading of the spec came out as:

  The spec in regard to exact behaviour at COMMIT in the presence of
  errors is, in spec language, undefined.

  The current PostgresQL behaviour doesn't violate the spec, but is
  also one of many possible mutually contradictory behaviours (such
  as not rolling back on error) that don't appear to violate the
  spec.

Ahh well, its not like inserting explicit ROLLBACKs is that hard.

-- 
J C Lawrence
-(*)Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Re: [GENERAL] COMMIT after an ERROR?

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:35:30 -0700 
patrick keshishian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The only things that are not rolled back are advancing of
 sequences and such.  I suspect serial types also exhibit similar
 behavior to sequences.

Ahh, that's actually critical information (which makes sense too
BTW).  thinks  Excellent.  Then as long as the auto-ROLLBACK on
error is a guaranteed ANSI behaviour rather than a PGSQL thing,
everything is just perfect.  Thanks.

-- 
J C Lawrence
-(*)Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html