Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-03-09 Thread Oleg Lebedev
Joe, I applied the patch to 7.4.1 on RH Linux 8.0 and it works great. Thanks. Oleg -Original Message- From: Joe Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Lane; Oleg Lebedev Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-03-04 Thread Joe Conway
Joe Conway wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it is now; with it,

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-02-23 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it is now; with it, you could specif

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new > overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an > additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it > is now; with it, you could specify the old

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-02-23 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: One question that I'd like some feedback on is the following: should the same change be applied to other functions that might throw an ERROR based on the remote side of the connection? For example, currently if dblink() is used in an attemp

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One question that I'd like some feedback on is the following: should the > same change be applied to other functions that might throw an ERROR > based on the remote side of the connection? For example, currently if > dblink() is used in an attempt to acce

Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction

2004-02-22 Thread Joe Conway
Oleg Lebedev wrote: Your fix is awesome! That's exactly what I need. What version of postgres do I need to have installed to try this patch? I am on 7.3 now. I plan to apply the attached to cvs tip in 24 hours or so. I don't think it qualifies as a bug fix, and it does represent a change in user