Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?
Date
Msg-id 9837222c0907250606la9ab4fk425b0d0984703a3@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> When you run a file with psql -1/--single-transaction, and a command fails,
> you get bombarded with
>
> ERROR:  current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
> transaction block
>
> for the rest of the file.
>

That would certainly be useful.

Personally I'd prefer it to default to that always, and not just in
-1, but that would break way too many old things I'm afraid...

/Magnus

> Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?