On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 20:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not convinced by the above argument, because it requires that > you pretend there's a significant difference between syntax errors and > "run time" errors (whatever those are).
After a syntax error like "COMMMIT" the transaction will remain inside the failed transaction block, but an error during COMMIT (e.g. deferred constraint check failure) will exit the transaction block. > I think we'd be far better off to maintain the position that a failed > BEGIN does not start a transaction, under any circumstances. To do > that, we cannot have this new option attached to the BEGIN, which is a > good thing anyway IMO from a standards compatibility point of view. > It'd be better to make it a separate utility statement. +1 for a utility statement. Much clearer from the user's standpoint what kind of errors they might expect, and whether the session will remain in a transaction block. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers