On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, gabrielle <gor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera asked: >> How does it play with ON_ERROR_STOP/ROLLBACK? > > With ON_ERROR_STOP=ON, psql issues an error when it encounters one, > stops processing the file that contains the error, and then continues > to process any remaining files. > > I'm still investigating ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK. I need to tinker with it > some more before I say anything concrete. > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Also, how does it play with --single-transaction. > That was buried in our original report :) "BEGIN-COMMIT statements > within the files cause warnings when the command is wrapped in a > transaction with the -1 switch (as specified in the patch submission)" > > To expand upon that a bit: when psql encounters a file that contains > a BEGIN statement, you get the expected "WARNING: there is already a > transaction in progress" message. The COMMIT at the end of that file > (assuming the user doesn't forget it) generates a COMMIT. Commands > after that commit, or in any remaining files to be processed, are > dealt with according to the user's autocommit settings: > - if autocommit is ON, statements in the remaining files are processed > & committed; the implicit COMMIT at the end of the whole thing then > generates a "WARNING: there is no transaction in progress" message > - if autocommit is OFF, statements in the remaining files generate > "ERROR: current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of > transaction block" messages.
So none of the above sounds like desired behavior to me... is that just me? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
