Re: Connecting website with SQL-database.....
Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>
From: Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>
To: Manuel Lemos <mlemos@acm.org>
Cc: lylyeoh@mecomb.com, tomg@admin.nrnet.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2000-04-25T14:54:08Z
Lists: pgsql-general
Manuel Lemos wrote: > > >> >Plus if you get a warning/error, Postgresql _requires_ you to rollback, > >> >whereas many other databases don't. > >> > >> That's what Metabase expects. When there is an error, you should rollback > >> before exiting a transaction with AutoCommit(Off). > >> > >> I noticed the discussion but I could not quite figure what was the problem. > > >The problem on this, from my perspective, is that if you have a transaction > >that consists of 20 queries, and the 14th query fails, then you'd like to > >be able to abort only the *statement*, recovering in the client application > >in whatever way seems appropriate. Automatically *forcing* a rollback > >takes that recovery choice away. > > The problem is that PostgreSQL lacks of transactions check points with which > you could do what you want. That doesn't mean that transactions work > differently from other DBMS. There's just only one check point to rollback: > the transaction begining. I think the difference with other RDBMS that I and several others were highlighting was the *behavior* resulting from a failed statement within a transaction (i.e., aborted transaction vs. aborted statement), but I think your orthogonal point is still valid. Regards, Ed Loehr