On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:20:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I think the pattern is and should be different for toplevel > transaction control commands than for other things. If you issue a > BEGIN, we want it to end up that you're definitely in a transaction at > that point, and if you issue a COMMIT or ROLLBACK or ABORT, we want > you to definitely be out of a transaction after that. This is > important for reasons discussed on Andrew's thread about pre-commit > triggers just today. > > The same considerations don't apply elsewhere; the user has made a > mistake, and there's no particular reason not to throw an ERROR. We > could throw a WARNING or NOTICE and pretend like things are OK, but > there doesn't seem to be much point, certainly not enough to justify > changing long-established behavior.
OK, what I am hearing you say is that we should change ABORT from NOTICE to WARNING, leave SAVEPOINT/ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT as WARNING (so all transaction control commands are warnings), and leave the new SET commands as ERRORs. Works for me. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
