"Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes:
>>> If that is not the case, I don't understand why core seems to be
>>> against a mode (GUC), where an implicit savepoint is generated before
>>> each statement so that "rollback of the last statement" would be possible.
>>
>> Because we learned our lesson with the ill-fated autocommit GUC
>> variable. You can't have fundamental transactional semantics depending
>> on the phase of the moon, but from the point of view of application
>> code, anything that can be flipped as easily as a GUC variable is an
>> unknown.
> On the other hand, the scenario of a psql option (read: I have given up the
> idea of a backend implementation) to rollback only last statement on error
> is quite different.
Sure (and we already have one for autocommit). But I thought you were
asking about a backend implementation.
regards, tom lane
