Re: in failed sql transaction
| От | Gurjeet Singh |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: in failed sql transaction |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 65937bea0609250510p4397ad93r8f1a46a93477e315@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: in failed sql transaction (Alban Hertroys <alban@magproductions.nl>) |
| Ответы |
Re: in failed sql transaction
Re: in failed sql transaction |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On 9/25/06, Alban Hertroys <alban@magproductions.nl> wrote:
In this case
PostgreSQL does the right thing; something went wrong, queries after the
error may very well depend on that data - you can't rely on the current
state. And it's what the SQL specs say too, of course...
[1] I'm not trying to imply that what PostgreSQL does is (in general).
--
In an automated/programmatic access to the database, this might be desirable; but when there's someone manually doing some activity, it sure does get to one's nerves if the transaction till now was a long one. Instead, the operator would love to edit just that one query and fire again!
Also, in automated/programmatic access, the programs are supposed to catch the error and rollback/correct on their own.
I sure like PG's following of the standards, but usability should not be lost sight of.
Best regards,
--
gurjeet@EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: