On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:01 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Perhaps you can explain further? My understanding was that the desired > > functionality was that any failure would cause all aspects of the load > > to fail also, so I don't see any problem with that; clearly I need to > > listen to your thoughts. > > Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I was talking about the > begin/commit statements that are already in the dump - doesn't wrapping > the entire lot guarantee failure when you have: begin; begin; commit; > commit; ?
Tom 'splained. I thought you meant the behaviour, rather than the invocation. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
