On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:01 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Perhaps you can explain further? My understanding was that the desired
> > functionality was that any failure would cause all aspects of the load
> > to fail also, so I don't see any problem with that; clearly I need to
> > listen to your thoughts.
>
> Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I was talking about the
> begin/commit statements that are already in the dump - doesn't wrapping
> the entire lot guarantee failure when you have: begin; begin; commit;
> commit; ?
Tom 'splained. I thought you meant the behaviour, rather than the
invocation.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
