Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
for not attaching, but my mail system is not
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well enough
at the moment. So, please try
Michael Paesold wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well enough
at the moment. So, please try to break
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
* If I read the code correctly, you now don't destroy user savepoints
anymore, but on the other hand, you do not release the psql savepoint after
a user-defined savepoint is released. In other words, each time a user
creates a savepoint, one psql savepoint is
Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paesold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do think so. In it's current state, would you yourself put \reseterror in
your .psqlrc? Or even an /etc/psqlrc?
It would break all my scripts that must either succeed or fail -- now they
will produce garbage in my databases
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
The current way is ok for me at the moment. I still think there is a better
way (parsing statements like it's already done for
no-transaction-allowed-statements), but hey, as soon as your patch will be
applied, I can myself propose another patch to improve this.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Some suggestions in random order:
* I think you should use PSQLexec instead of using PQexec directly.
PSQLexec
is used by all \-commands and prints out queries with -E, which is very
helpful for debugging.
-E display queries that internal
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Finally had a chance to sit down at look at this afresh, and I'm
pretty sure I've got all the kinks worked out this time. Apologies
for not attaching, but my mail system is not working well enough
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
The SQL-Standard itself says that errors inside transactions should only
rollback the last statement, if possible. So why is that not implemented
in
PostgreSQL? What I read from past discussions here, is because it's just
unsave and
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
I think everyone agrees this should only work in interactive mode. I
think the only unknown is if it should be 'on' by default in interactive
mode? Does it make sense to follow the standard in interactive mode if
we don't
Alvaro, did you update your patch to address the concerns mentioned below?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have updated this patch to the current CVS HEAD. If somebody would be
so kind
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:14:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro, did you update your patch to address the concerns mentioned below?
I'm on it right now. I wanted to finish the shared row locking patch
first, and now that I'm waiting on someone to review it, I'll give some
time to this.
12 matches
Mail list logo
