On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:46, Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> wrote:
> On 25/02/2020 12:11, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 13:25 +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:47 PM Vladimir Sitnikov > >> <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Noone suggested that "commit leaves the session in a transaction > state". > >>> Of course, every commit should terminate the transaction. > >>> However, if a commit fails (for any reason), it should produce the > relevant ERROR that explains what went wrong rather than silently doing a > rollback. > >> > >> OK, I guess I misinterpreted the proposal. That would be much less > >> problematic -- any driver or application that can't handle ERROR in > >> response to an attempted COMMIT would be broken already. > > > > I agree with that. > > > > There is always some chance that someone relies on COMMIT not > > throwing an error when it rolls back, but I think that throwing an > > error is actually less astonishing than *not* throwing one. > > > > So, +1 for the proposal from me. > > I started this thread for some discussion and hopefully a documentation > patch. But now I have moved firmly into the +1 camp. COMMIT should > error if it can't commit, and then terminate the (aborted) transaction. > -- > Vik Fearing > OK, here is a patch that actually doesn't leave the transaction in a failed state but emits the error and rolls back the transaction. This is far from complete as it fails a number of tests and does not cover all of the possible paths. But I'd like to know if this is strategy will be acceptable ? What it does is create another server error level that will emit the error and return as opposed to not returning. I honestly haven't given much thought to the error message. At this point I just want the nod as to how to do it.
0001-change-commit-semantics-to-throw-an-error-and-then-r.patch
Description: Binary data
