On January 14, 2005 01:51 pm, j.random.programmer wrote:
[...]
> I was simple catching the exception but not rolling
> back since
> I presumed the rest of the transaction would succeed
> (and
> commit() didn't complain). It's only after playing
> around that I
> realized that the transaction was failing because of
> the earlier
> error.
>
[...]
>
> So maybe, the database folks can do something about
> this in version 8.0. Maybe you can also forward this
> message
> to the core postgres folks ?
>
I *strongly* disagree. As mentioned before, a transaction is supposed to be an
*atomic* unit of work; either it succeeds completely or it's not executed at
all. Consider the canonical example of a transaction: money being tranfered
from one account to another. You don't want one update to be committed if the
other failed.
JdV!!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan de Visser jdevisser@digitalfairway.com
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!
--------------------------------------------------------------
