Re: [GENERAL] psql question: aborting a "script"

2016-03-15 Thread Francisco Olarte 
Hi Melvin:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Melvin Davidson  wrote:
> What you really want is
> "ON_ERROR_STOP
...
> So just
> SET ON_ERROR_STOP = ON
> before any other statements

IIRC you are right with the variable ... BUT .. it is a psql setting,
not a session setting, so he'll probably need to use the \set psql
mettacommand:

\set ON_ERROR_STOP on

and also, use on as suggested on the docs, not ON, I'm not sure wether
PSQL is case sensitive.

Francisco Olarte.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] psql question: aborting a "script"

2016-03-15 Thread Albe Laurenz 
John McKown wrote:
> I'm likely abusing the psql program. What I have is an awk program which 
> reads a file and produces a
> number of INSERT INTO commands. I then feed these commands into psql to 
> execute them. Yes, a Perl
> program would be a better idea. Anyway, sometimes the commands are rejected 
> due to some problem, such
> as duplicate primary key. What I wish is that the psql command had a switch, 
> or control command, which
> would say "exit from psql if anything fails". To me, this is like the BASH 
> "set -e" command for a
> shell script. Does this sound like a useful addition. Or am I just missing 
> where it already exists?

Did you try "psql -v ON_ERROR_STOP=on"?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] psql question: aborting a "script"

2016-03-15 Thread John McKown 
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Melvin Davidson 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, John McKown <
> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Adrian Klaver > > wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/15/2016 07:33 AM, John McKown wrote:
>>>
 I'm likely abusing the psql program. What I have is an awk program which
 reads a file and produces a number of INSERT INTO commands. I then feed
 these commands into psql to execute them. Yes, a Perl program would be a
 better idea. Anyway, sometimes the commands are rejected due to some
 problem, such as duplicate primary key. What I wish is that the psql
 command had a switch, or control command, which would say "exit from
 psql if anything fails". To me, this is like the BASH "set -e" command
 for a shell script. Does this sound like a useful addition. Or am I just
 missing where it already exists?

>>>
>>> Would this help?:
>>>
>>
>> ​Well, actually, no. It does force a ROLLBACK, but the individual INSERT
>> INTO commands are still being read and rejected, one by one. And there are
>> literally _thousands_ of them. It is not a "problem", per se. It's just
>> that it is "wasting" time and effort on the part of the system.
>>
>> If you're wonder why I do it this way, it is because the commands that I
>> generate are simple SQL standard commands. And they can be fed into
>> programs which update different SQL data bases, such as Postgresql (psql
>> command), MariaDB (mysql command), SQLite3 (sqlite3 command), and so forth.
>> Basically, I'm lazy and don't want to code multiple RDMS-oriented commands,
>> or have a single command which can interface with multiple RDMS systems. ​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/interactive/app-psql.html
>>> "-1
>>> --single-transaction
>>>
>>> When psql executes a script, adding this option wraps BEGIN/COMMIT
>>> around the script to execute it as a single transaction. This ensures that
>>> either all the commands complete successfully, or no changes are applied.
>>>
>>> If the script itself uses BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK, this option
>>> will not have the desired effects. Also, if the script contains any command
>>> that cannot be executed inside a transaction block, specifying this option
>>> will cause that command (and hence the whole transaction) to fail.
>>>
>>> "
>>> --
>>> Adrian Klaver
>>> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein
>>
>> Maranatha! <><
>> John McKown
>>
>
>
> What you really want is
> "ON_ERROR_STOP
>
> By default, command processing continues after an error. When this
> variable is set to on, processing will instead stop immediately. In
> interactive mode, psql will return to the command prompt; otherwise, psql
> will exit, returning error code 3 to distinguish this case from fatal error
> conditions, which are reported using error code 1. In either case, any
> currently running scripts (the top-level script, if any, and any other
> scripts which it may have in invoked) will be terminated immediately. If
> the top-level command string contained multiple SQL commands, processing
> will stop with the current command.
> "
> So just
> SET ON_ERROR_STOP = ON
> before any other statements
> --
> *Melvin Davidson*
> I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
>

​We have a winner! I knew I was overlooking something. Thanks.​


-- 
A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

Re: [GENERAL] psql question: aborting a "script"

2016-03-15 Thread Melvin Davidson 
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:49 AM, John McKown 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Adrian Klaver 
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/15/2016 07:33 AM, John McKown wrote:
>>
>>> I'm likely abusing the psql program. What I have is an awk program which
>>> reads a file and produces a number of INSERT INTO commands. I then feed
>>> these commands into psql to execute them. Yes, a Perl program would be a
>>> better idea. Anyway, sometimes the commands are rejected due to some
>>> problem, such as duplicate primary key. What I wish is that the psql
>>> command had a switch, or control command, which would say "exit from
>>> psql if anything fails". To me, this is like the BASH "set -e" command
>>> for a shell script. Does this sound like a useful addition. Or am I just
>>> missing where it already exists?
>>>
>>
>> Would this help?:
>>
>
> ​Well, actually, no. It does force a ROLLBACK, but the individual INSERT
> INTO commands are still being read and rejected, one by one. And there are
> literally _thousands_ of them. It is not a "problem", per se. It's just
> that it is "wasting" time and effort on the part of the system.
>
> If you're wonder why I do it this way, it is because the commands that I
> generate are simple SQL standard commands. And they can be fed into
> programs which update different SQL data bases, such as Postgresql (psql
> command), MariaDB (mysql command), SQLite3 (sqlite3 command), and so forth.
> Basically, I'm lazy and don't want to code multiple RDMS-oriented commands,
> or have a single command which can interface with multiple RDMS systems. ​
>
>
>
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/interactive/app-psql.html
>> "-1
>> --single-transaction
>>
>> When psql executes a script, adding this option wraps BEGIN/COMMIT
>> around the script to execute it as a single transaction. This ensures that
>> either all the commands complete successfully, or no changes are applied.
>>
>> If the script itself uses BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK, this option
>> will not have the desired effects. Also, if the script contains any command
>> that cannot be executed inside a transaction block, specifying this option
>> will cause that command (and hence the whole transaction) to fail.
>>
>> "
>> --
>> Adrian Klaver
>> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein
>
> Maranatha! <><
> John McKown
>


What you really want is
"ON_ERROR_STOP

By default, command processing continues after an error. When this variable
is set to on, processing will instead stop immediately. In interactive
mode, psql will return to the command prompt; otherwise, psql will exit,
returning error code 3 to distinguish this case from fatal error
conditions, which are reported using error code 1. In either case, any
currently running scripts (the top-level script, if any, and any other
scripts which it may have in invoked) will be terminated immediately. If
the top-level command string contained multiple SQL commands, processing
will stop with the current command.
"
So just
SET ON_ERROR_STOP = ON
before any other statements
-- 
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

[GENERAL] psql question: aborting a "script"

2016-03-15 Thread John McKown 
I'm likely abusing the psql program. What I have is an awk program which
reads a file and produces a number of INSERT INTO commands. I then feed
these commands into psql to execute them. Yes, a Perl program would be a
better idea. Anyway, sometimes the commands are rejected due to some
problem, such as duplicate primary key. What I wish is that the psql
command had a switch, or control command, which would say "exit from psql
if anything fails". To me, this is like the BASH "set -e" command for a
shell script. Does this sound like a useful addition. Or am I just missing
where it already exists?

-- 
A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein

Maranatha! <><
John McKown