Holger Marzen <holger@marzen.de> writes:
> On 8 May 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
>
> > Hmm don't you have to ROLLBACK and redo the whole transaction without
> > the offending row(s), since you can't commit while in ABORT state? Or
> > am I misunderstanding?
>
> Postgres complains and doesn't accept the following inserts after a
> failed one until end of transaction. I didn't have the time yet to
> figure out if it rolls back the preceeding inserts.
I'm pretty sure that the transaction goes into ABORT state and all you
can do is rollback and start over, minus the offending row(s).
> Is there a rule in SQL standards that describes what should happen if
> some statemens in a transaction fail and the program issues a commit?
I think PG's is standard behavior; that's kind of the whole point of
having transactions.
-Doug
