Hi, Yes, I believe that you are right. As far as I can gather, the postgres transaction error handling is like oracle stored procedures. If you do not catch the error the whole transaction is rolled back. I am curious why Postgres has gone with a model that does not allow the user a choice to deal with the statement level errors that may arise in a long transaction. That either calls for very short transactions or an introduction of explicit savepoint creation and explicit savepoint destruction for every statement, if you - the user, want the ability to deal with statement errors that may arise. I realize that it is almost impossible to change that architecture now, since it would be such a low level change, but I am surprised that it is not a common complaint from the user community, since bulk ddl loads would truly suffer. I do not wish to compare Postgres to Oracle per se, I used oracle because I am more familiar with it than the Sql Server transaction model, they did a rewrite on transaction handling for SS 2005 and I never fully got into it. Sincerely, Kasia -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-admin-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Hurry Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:50 PM To: pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: transaction error handling On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:57:24 -0800, Kasia Tuszynska wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > This is an architectural question. > I am testing on Postgres 9.0.2 on windows and linux(suse, rhel, ubuntu) > > I want to make sure that I have the correct understanding of the > Postgres architecture and would like to enquire if there are any plans > to change it. > > Comparing Oracle and Postgres from the perspective of error handling on > the transaction level I observed the following: > > Oracle: > Begin transaction Insert - no error Implicit savepoint Insert - error > raised Implicit rollback to the savepoint, no transaction loss, error > raised on the insert statement that errored out. > End transaction, implicit commit, with the single error free insert. > > Postgres: > Begin transaction Insert - no error Insert - error raised Transaction > loss = no implicit rollback to the single error free insert. > > Is this a correct interpretation of the Postgres transaction error > handling? > If so, are there any changes being considered, or perhaps already > implemented? I suspect you may be barking up the wrong tree. Comparing default behaviour of PSQL to SQL*Plus is not the same thing as comparing PostgreSQL to Oracle. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
