Re: [HACKERS] psql and libpq fixes

> Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE> writes:
> >> In general, an existing script is not going to be written with the idea
> >> that psql will cut it off at the knees for provoking an error.  If the
> >> author *does* want all the rest of the commands to be skipped on error,
> >> he'll just have written BEGIN and END around the whole script.
> 
> > Last time I checked you couldn't roll back a create table. ;)
> 
> Au contraire, rolling back a CREATE works fine.  It's rolling back
> a DROP that gives trouble ;-)
> 
> This does bring up a thought --- should psql's kill-the-script-on-error
> option perhaps zap the script only for errors committed outside of a
> transaction block?  I'm not sure how hard it is for psql to keep track
> of whether the script is in an xact, so maybe this'd be far harder than
> it's worth.  Seems like it deserves some consideration though.

Why is being in a transaction block important?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026