On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 1/22/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Could you post an example, just so we're all clear what the problems
> >> are? I thought I understood what you are requesting; I may not.
> > ok,
> > The short version is I would like the ability to run some sql commands
> > and recover the transaction if an error occurs.
> I'm getting tired of repeating this, but: neither of you have said
> anything that doesn't appear to me to be handled by ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK.
> What exactly is lacking in that feature?

Sorry for not replying to your other post.

ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK doesn't do the same thing, thats why. It shuts out the
noise messages, true, but it doesn't re-execute all of the commands in
the transaction that succeeded and so breaks the transaction, as
originally coded.

stmt2; <-- error

results in stmt3 completing successfully even though stmt1 and stmt2 do
not == broken script.

The behaviour we've been discussing is when stmt2 fails, to allow stmt3
to be submitted, so that at commit, stmt1 and stmt3 effects will be
successful *if* the user wishes this.

  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to