On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 20:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not convinced by the above argument, because it requires that
> you pretend there's a significant difference between syntax errors and
> "run time" errors (whatever those are).
After a syntax error like "COMMMIT" the transaction will remain inside
the failed transaction block, but an error during COMMIT (e.g. deferred
constraint check failure) will exit the transaction block.
> I think we'd be far better off to maintain the position that a failed
> BEGIN does not start a transaction, under any circumstances. To do
> that, we cannot have this new option attached to the BEGIN, which is a
> good thing anyway IMO from a standards compatibility point of view.
> It'd be better to make it a separate utility statement.
+1 for a utility statement. Much clearer from the user's standpoint what
kind of errors they might expect, and whether the session will remain in
a transaction block.
Regards,Jeff Davis
