On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/29/2014 03:56 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>
> So you think psql should issue "COMMIT;" even if it is exiting due to
>>
> "ON_ERROR_STOP"?
>>
>
> I say yes, if it is a non-SQL error. As Viktor stated, SQL errors abort
> the transaction.
>
>
Ok, so we disagree here because that distinction seems arbitrary and
decidedly not useful.
>> Whether you do or don't can you show me where in the documentation the
>> current behavior is described?
>>
>
> Your biggest issue seems to be with --single-transaction and ON_ERROR_STOP
> so:
>
> --single-transaction
>
> When psql executes a script, adding this option wraps BEGIN/COMMIT
> around the script to execute it as a single transaction.
>
> Therefore:
>
> BEGIN;
> script
> COMMIT;
>
> I would and have agreed with your previous statements that it is not clear
> enough that \i is not an SQL command and an error with same is ignored by
> the transaction. Outside of that I see no problem.
>
>
That still leaves ambiguity. How about:
--single-transaction
When psql executes a script using this option it explicitly begins a
transaction at session start and commits that transaction at session end.
The transaction will commit even if the script is forced to exit early
due to ON_ERROR_STOP: and if no SQL errors have occurred all statements
prior to the error-inducing psql meta-command will be committed. For this
reason it is not recommended to combine this option and ON_ERROR_STOP -
instead omit this option and supply the transaction commands yourself.
ON_ERROR_STOP
[existing wording]
As described under the --single-transaction option the commit issued at
session end will occur prior to psql exiting and could result in running
script being partially committed.
David J.
