Thread: Shouldn't psql -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP?

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.

Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?

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/

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> 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...

Doing it always would be really annoying.  I often reload dumps that
fail the grant statements but otherwise work.  Admittedly, if I
planned ahead, I could avoid having the grants be present in the
dumps, but that would require planning ahead...

But +1 for doing it when -1 is used.

...Robert

Am 25.07.2009 um 15:00 schrieb Peter Eisentraut:

> 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.
>
> Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?

Sounds reasonable, +1 from me.

Regards
Michael Paesold

--On Samstag, Juli 25, 2009 16:00:18 +0300 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.
>
> Shouldn't -1 imply ON_ERROR_STOP or some variant by default?

Only if it could ensured that embedded SAVEPOINTS can be handled 
properly...a quick check shows that ON_ERROR_STOP will stop any script even 
when the errorneous command is probably rolled back by a subsequent 
ROLLBACK TO:

SELECT 1;

SAVEPOINT A;

SELECT et; <-- ON_ERROR_STOP stops here

ROLLBACK TO A;

SELECT 2;

It seems -1 needs some smarter variant of ON_ERROR_STOP.

--  Thanks
                   Bernd