Re: Error on failed COMMIT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Date
Msg-id 16003.1581463664@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Error on failed COMMIT  (Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>)
Responses Re: Error on failed COMMIT  ("Haumacher, Bernhard" <haui@haumacher.de>)
Re: Error on failed COMMIT  (Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>)
Re: Error on failed COMMIT  (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
> On 11/02/2020 23:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I assume you're imagining that that would leave us still in
>> transaction-aborted state, and the session is basically dead in
>> the water until the user thinks to issue ROLLBACK instead?

> Actually, I was imagining that it would end the transaction as it does
> today, just with an error code.
> This is backed up by General Rule 9 which says "The current
> SQL-transaction is terminated."

Hm ... that would be sensible, but I'm not entirely convinced.  There
are several preceding rules that say that an exception condition is
raised, and normally you can stop reading at that point; nothing else
is going to happen.  If COMMIT acts specially in this respect, they
ought to say so.

In any case, while this interpretation might change the calculus a bit,
I think we still end up concluding that altering this behavior has more
downside than upside.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Next
From: "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: open-source equivalent of golden-gate