Re: [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ed Loehr
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling
Date
Msg-id 38C72778.66B02C85@austin.rr.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Transaction abortions & recovery handling  (Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com> writes:
> >>>> Any suggestions on how I might handle this?
> >>
> >> Er ... run 7.0beta ?
> 
> > Based on recent threads on this list, I have the
> > impression that 7.0beta is not quite ready for production.
> 
> A fair objection, since in fact it isn't. [snip] However, if the
> alternative is continuing to get bit by a 6.5 bug, it seems to me that
> being an early adopter of 7.0 is not such a bad choice.

Agreed, if that is in fact my only alternative.  Fortunately, this
showstopper bug shows up infrequently (it's been a month or two since
the last bite).  I'm still hoping to avoid the bleeding edge on this
production system.

Is there any reasonably straight-forward means to allowing additional
queries within the same transaction after I get an ERROR?

Regards,
Ed Loehr


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Next
From: Adriaan Joubert
Date:
Subject: Unrecognised machine in 7.0beta1