On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> > To reiterate my opinion, I think the behavior should be the same
> > for interactive and non-interactive sessions. Not only will it
> > prevent nasty surprises, but unless we make a third 'setting',
> > there will be no way to enable this in non-interactive scripts,
> > which is something that I would want to be able to do.
>
> I'm finding it hard to visualize a non-interactive script making
> any good use of such a setting. Without a way to test whether
> you got an error or not, it would amount to an "ignore errors
> within transactions" mode, which seems a pretty bad idea.
>
> Can you show a plausible use-case for such a thing?
>
I plan to use it in scripts that push site meta-data out to our test
servers, where the list of sites are all different so any static data
dump is bound to fail on some foreign key checks (but I don't care which
ones fail as long as some go over).
I'm sure others can come up with different scenarios, but more
importantly is I don't see a good reason to treat this setting different
from all others and explicitly forbid this use from people, especially
when I can imagine people coming from other dbs where this behavior is
more common who might in fact expect it to work this way.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
