On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 12:25 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote: > > After thinking some more about it, I think that COMMIT AND CHAIN would have > > to change behavior: if COMMIT throws an error (because the transaction was > > aborted), no new transaction should be started. Everything else seems fishy: > > the statement fails, but still starts a new transaction? > > > > I guess that's also at fault for the unexpected result status that > > Masahiko complained about in the other message. > > > I haven't had a look at the result status in libpq. For JDBC we don't see that. > We throw an exception when we get this error report. This is very consistent as the commit fails and we throw an exception > > > So I think we should not introduce USER_ERROR at all. It is too much > > of a kluge: fail, but not really... > > What we do now is actually worse as we do not get an error report and we silently change commit to rollback. > How is this better ?
I see your point from the view of the JDBC driver.
It just feels hacky - somewhat similar to what you say above: don't go through the normal transaction rollback steps, but issue an error message.
At least we should fake it well...
OK, let me look into how we deal with COMMIT and CHAIN.
I can see some real issues with this as Vik pointed out.
