Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK
От | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54A2CA9C.2070604@aklaver.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK (David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK
|
Список | pgsql-general |
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 attention to consistency >>>> would be warranted here. >> >>> Now that i read it i remember a client complaining about this some time >>> ago. I forgot about it, but i think there's value in it to backpatch. >> >> Hm. Last night I wrote the attached draft patch, which I was intending >> to apply to HEAD only. The argument against back-patching is basically >> that this might change the interpretation of scripts that had been >> accepted silently before. For example >> \set ECHO_HIDDEN NoExec >> will now select "noexec" mode whereas before you silently got "on" mode. >> 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 counts as that. >> >> Opinions anyone? > > -0.5 for back patching > > The one thing supporting this is that we'd potentially be fixing scripts > that are broken but don't know it yet. But the downside of changing active > settings for working scripts - even if they are only accidentally working - > is enough to counter that for me. Being more liberal in our acceptance of > input is more feature than bug fix even if we document that we accept more > items. It is more about being consistent then liberal. Personally I think a situation where for one variable 0 = off but for another 0 = on, is a bug That said it may be worth a documentation change and release note > that those options are not liberal currently so as to help those relying on > issues find and fix them proactively. > > David J. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/ON-ERROR-ROLLBACK-tp5832298p5832448.html > Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: