Re: BUG #17504: psql --single-transaction -vON_ERROR_STOP=1 still commits after client-side error
От | Christoph Berg |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17504: psql --single-transaction -vON_ERROR_STOP=1 still commits after client-side error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | YsL7YmghTdpRsKFZ@msg.df7cb.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17504: psql --single-transaction -vON_ERROR_STOP=1 still commits after client-side error (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17504: psql --single-transaction -vON_ERROR_STOP=1 still commits after client-side error
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Re: Michael Paquier > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:31:21AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Okay, let's do so then on HEAD. I'll wait a bit more, in case others > > have an opinion to offer on the matter. > > Well, done. One thing that I find a bit surprising in all that is the > lack of consistency in the handling of the return code of psql when > the last switch fails when not using ON_ERROR_STOP. For example, psql > fails if the last switch is a slash command from -c, but succeeds if > the last switch is a slash command in a file from -f that exists. > This comes down to the way failures are passed down from MainLoop() so > I am not sure if this is worth worrying about and nobody has > complained about that AFAIK, but I have added some extra tests to at > least document everything I could think about to track changes, in > case somebody plays with this code in the future. Is there anything left to do to fix up the --single_transaction + ON_ERROR_STOP case here? From reading the code, it now does what it should do. What is left to do for backpatching it? Christoph
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: