On 5/28/2004 2:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 01:43:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> In this case, I want to try all of the inserts, but any of them can
>> fail, then I want the bottom part done.
>
> I wonder where everyone eas when I asked this question a lot of time
> ago. I said I thought the behavior should be like I described, and no
> one objected.
>
> Personally I think it would be a mistake to allow the COMMIT for the
> subtransaction to ignore the fact that the subxact was aborted. However
> I realize what you are proposing, and maybe this can be implemented
> using a parameter to COMMIT (indicating to not propagate the error if
> it's in aborted state, but commit normally otherwise).
I agree on this one. Subtransactions are a feature to add more fine
control to applications, not to ignore error checking for scripting.
>
> However if everyone disagrees, I can take that part out, and the code
> would be simpler. IMHO however, it would be less reliable.
Please don't.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
