This has already been implemented in CVS as a psql \set variable:
ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK = 'interactive'
and will appear in 8.1.
---
Michael Paesold wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:40:56PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> I hope you will be willing to comment on the issues when times come. I am
> not really satisfied myself, but without further discussion I did not want
> to continue to work on it. Anyway, I understand this is not the right time
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume this is to be saved for 8.1.
I assumed that to, so I did not want to disturb any more now.
> This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
> http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
Tom Lane wrote:
It i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I assume this is to be saved for 8.1.
>
> > This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
> > http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
>
> It is not remotely ready to apply yet, so please do not put it in the
> queue.
That que
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume this is to be saved for 8.1.
> This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
> http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
It is not remotely ready to apply yet, so please do not put it in the
queue.
regards, tom l
I assume this is to be saved for 8.1.
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Michael Paesold wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On the other hand, the scenario of a psql option (read: I have
> > given up the idea of a backend implementation) to rollback only
> > last statement on error is quite different.
>
> Sure (and we already have one for autocommit).
"Michael Paesold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I though the postgres behaviour of rolling back the whole transaction was
> standard?
Not really.
> If that is not the case, I don't understand why core seems to be
> against a mode (GUC), where an implicit savepoint is generated before each
> state
