Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In one light this is certainly a bug fix, but in another it's just >> definitional instability. >> >> If we'd gotten a field bug report we might well have chosen to back-patch, >> though, and perhaps your client's complaint count

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/30/2014 09:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Bernd Helmle writes: --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency would be warranted here. Now that i r

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread David Johnston
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 12/30/2014 07:43 AM, David G Johnston wrote: > >> Tom Lane-2 wrote >> >>> Bernd Helmle < >>> >> >> mailings@ >>> >> >> > writes: >>> --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane < >>> >> tgl@.pa >>> >> >> > wrote: >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 12/30/2014 07:43 AM, David G Johnston wrote: Tom Lane-2 wrote Bernd Helmle < mailings@ > writes: --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane < tgl@.pa > wrote: Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching material, but it sure seems like a bit of at

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread David G Johnston
Tom Lane-2 wrote > Bernd Helmle < > mailings@ > > writes: >> --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane < > tgl@.pa > > wrote: >>> Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching >>> material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency >>> would be warr

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bernd Helmle writes: > --On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: >> Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching >> material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency >> would be warranted here. > Now that i read it i remember a client compl

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-30 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On 29. Dezember 2014 12:55:11 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: Given the lack of previous complaints, this probably isn't backpatching material, but it sure seems like a bit of attention to consistency would be warranted here. Now that i read it i remember a client complaining about this some time

Re: [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-29 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 12/29/2014 09:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Adrian Klaver writes: So it seems you can turn ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on with either 1 or 'on', but you can only turn it off with 'off'. With ON_ERROR_STOP 1/on and 0/off both seem to work. Is this expected? Given the lack of previous complaints, thi

Re: [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-29 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver writes: > So it seems you can turn ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on with either 1 or 'on', but you > can only turn it off with 'off'. > With ON_ERROR_STOP 1/on and 0/off both seem to work. > Is this expected? on_error_stop_hook() uses ParseVariableBool, while on_error_rollback_hook() uses so

Re: [GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-29 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 12/29/2014 08:51 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: While working on the thread 'Rollback on include error in psql' I ran across something I am not sure with regards to ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK: So it seems you can turn ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK on with either 1 or 'on', but you can only turn it off with 'off'.

[GENERAL] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK

2014-12-29 Thread Adrian Klaver
While working on the thread 'Rollback on include error in psql' I ran across something I am not sure with regards to ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK: aklaver@panda:~> psql -d test -U aklaver -p 5452 --single-transaction --set ON_ERROR_STOP=on --set AUTOCOMMIT=off -f test_script.sql UPDATE 1 psql:test_script