On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> To achieve the effect Fujii is looking for, we would have to silently drop
>>> the connection. That would correctly leave the client not knowing whether
>>> the transaction committed or not.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>> It might be reasonable to COMMIT but also issue a warning message, or
>>>> to just close the connection without telling the client what happened,
>>>> but sending an error seems poor.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess that would work too, if the client knows to watch out for
>>> those warnings.
>>
>> -1
>
> yeah, unless by warning, you meant 'error'.
Well, as mentioned upthread, throwing an error when the transaction is
actually committed seems poor.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
