Re: BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200407091415.i69EFav01287@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message (elein <elein@varlena.com>) |
List | pgsql-bugs |
Do we want to add this to TODO: * Issue an extra message when COMMIT completes an failed transaction --------------------------------------------------------------------------- elein wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:23:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > PostgreSQL Bugs List wrote: > > >> In a block transaction, whether or not there were errors in the transaction > > >> issuing a commit; returns a COMMIT confirmation. > > > > > Uh, the tag indicates the COMMIT completed, not that it was a success. > > > > The current philosophy on command tags is "the tag is the same as the > > command actually issued". However we are talking about breaking that > > rule for EXECUTE, and if we do that, it's hard to say that we should > > continue to enforce the rule for COMMIT. It would clearly be useful > > for a COMMIT that ends a failed transaction to report ROLLBACK instead. > > > > > If we throw an error on a COMMIT, people willl think we did not close > > > the transacction, > > > > ... which we wouldn't have. That won't work. > > > > > and if we return a ROLLBACK, they will think they issued a rollback. > > > > Which, in effect, is what they did. Is it likely that this would break > > any clients? The intention of the current design rule is that clients > > can match the tag against the command they issued, but I don't know of > > any client code that actually does that. > > > > In any case, we already have some inconsistencies: > > > > regression=# begin; > > BEGIN > > regression=# end; > > COMMIT > > regression=# begin; > > BEGIN > > regression=# abort; > > ROLLBACK > > regression=# > > > > so it seems that in some cases we're already following a rule more like > > "the tag is the same as the command actually *executed*". > > > > I started out not wanting to make this change either, but the more > > I think about it the harder it is to hold that position. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > The message could be something like: > COMMIT: Transaction rolled back due to errors > > That way, it would reflect both the command and the action. > But I am concerned about the information rather than > the exact message if someone has better ideas. > > My reason for submitting the bug was as Tom stated: > > It would clearly be useful > > for a COMMIT that ends a failed transaction to report ROLLBACK instead. > > A commit that fails does not commit. It rolls back. > > In general, this would make it friendlier for new people and > space cadets that don't notice the last statement failed :-) > > Elein > elein@varlena.com > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
pgsql-bugs by date: