Thread: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Ian Barwick
Date:
just wondering:

test=> select version();                                        version
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PostgreSQL 8.0.0beta4 on
i686-pc-linux-gnu,compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
 
3.3.3 (SuSE Linux)
(1 row)

test=> begin;
BEGIN
test=> commit;
COMMIT
test=> commit;
WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
ROLLBACK

Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?

Ian Barwick
barwick@gmail.com


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Ian Barwick wrote:
> just wondering:
> 
> test=> select version();
>                                          version
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  PostgreSQL 8.0.0beta4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux)
> (1 row)
> 
> test=> begin;
> BEGIN
> test=> commit;
> COMMIT
> test=> commit;
> WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
> ROLLBACK
> 
> Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?

Because the transaction was not committed, but rather rolled back.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Ian Barwick
Date:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:42:19 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> Ian Barwick wrote:
> 
> 
> > just wondering:
> >
> > test=> select version();
> >                                          version
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  PostgreSQL 8.0.0beta4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> > 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux)
> > (1 row)
> >
> > test=> begin;
> > BEGIN
> > test=> commit;
> > COMMIT
> > test=> commit;
> > WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
> > ROLLBACK
> >
> > Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?
> 
> Because the transaction was not committed, but rather rolled back.

Aha. It had me a little confused because between the first COMMIT and
the second there were several screens of data, and I wasn't sure if
I'd issued the first COMMIT. Seeing ROLLBACK made me unsure whether I
was still in a transaction which had in just been rolled back.

Pre 8.0 versions echo COMMIT in this situation.

Thanks

Ian Barwick
barwick@gmail.com


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes

From
Oliver Elphick
Date:
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > test=> begin;
> > BEGIN
> > test=> commit;
> > COMMIT
> > test=> commit;
> > WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
> > ROLLBACK
> > 
> > Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?
> 
> Because the transaction was not committed, but rather rolled back.

It's still a misleading message; in those circumstances, how about
returning "NO ACTION" instead?

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                          olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA  92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E  1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================   "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a       branch, and is
withered;and men gather them, and cast     them into the fire, and they are burned."
                    John 15:6 
 



Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > test=> begin;
> > > BEGIN
> > > test=> commit;
> > > COMMIT
> > > test=> commit;
> > > WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
> > > ROLLBACK
> > > 
> > > Is there any reason ROLLBACK and not COMMIT is echoed here?
> > 
> > Because the transaction was not committed, but rather rolled back.
> 
> It's still a misleading message; in those circumstances, how about
> returning "NO ACTION" instead?

Uh, it took a lot of discussion to agree on ROLLBACK.  It would take
even more discussion to add a new tag return value.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
>> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> test=> begin;
>>> BEGIN
>>> test=> commit;
>>> COMMIT
>>> test=> commit;
>>> WARNING:  there is no transaction in progress
>>> ROLLBACK
>> 
>> It's still a misleading message; in those circumstances, how about
>> returning "NO ACTION" instead?

> Uh, it took a lot of discussion to agree on ROLLBACK.  It would take
> even more discussion to add a new tag return value.

I don't care for "NO ACTION" either.  However, the prior discussion had
to do with what to echo in the case that you are saying COMMIT in a
failed transaction.  I don't think anyone thought about this particular
corner case, viz COMMIT outside any transaction.  I think you could make
a reasonable argument that the tag should remain COMMIT for this case,
since we do not consider it an error.

On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
it worthwhile.

Comments?
        regards, tom lane


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
> it worthwhile.

Patch attached.  It passes the regression tests.  It shouldn't have
secondary effects, but please test.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Pensar que el espectro que vemos es ilusorio no lo despoja de espanto,
sólo le suma el nuevo terror de la locura" (Perelandra, CSLewis)

Attachment

Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
>> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
>> it worthwhile.

> Patch attached.  It passes the regression tests.  It shouldn't have
> secondary effects, but please test.

Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
COMMIT were just some random utility command?

In any case, the comment right above this needs adjustment ...
        regards, tom lane


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On the other hand, it's also a pretty minor issue, and if it turns out
> >> to require a lot of code rejiggering to make it do that, I'd not think
> >> it worthwhile.
>
> > Patch attached.  It passes the regression tests.  It shouldn't have
> > secondary effects, but please test.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
> COMMIT were just some random utility command?

It's the same thing, because CommitTransactionCommand acts identically
either way.  I changed it anyway because it seems simpler.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Licensee shall have no right to use the Licensed Software
for productive or commercial use. (Licencia de StarOffice 6.0 beta)

Attachment

Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
>> COMMIT were just some random utility command?

> It's the same thing, because CommitTransactionCommand acts identically
> either way.  I changed it anyway because it seems simpler.

Patch applied.
        regards, tom lane


Re: 8.0b4: COMMIT outside of a transaction echoes ROLLBACK

From
Ian Barwick
Date:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:45:22 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:29:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be better to just stay in TBLOCK_STARTED state, as if the
> >> COMMIT were just some random utility command?
> 
> > It's the same thing, because CommitTransactionCommand acts identically
> > either way.  I changed it anyway because it seems simpler.
> 
> Patch applied.

Many thanks for this. I appreciate it's a fairly trivial issue, but
seeing the word "ROLLBACK" when a commit, or at least a non-operation
were expected, can do nasty things to one's blood pressure.

Ian Barwick
barwick@gmail.net