James Le Cuirot <chewi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Perhaps you can explain what is the functionality you want to >> achieve, as I, for one, don't understand. Do you want transactions? >> Or not? > I want an implicit transaction around the whole script if no explicit > transactions are present in the script. This is what psql's -c option > does and this is also what the pg gem does because both use PQexec. Well, psql -c (and also multiple commands in PQexec) have more odd behaviors than that. Notably, any error causes abandonment of the *whole* string, even if it's got begin/end commands in it. Most people think that psql -c's behavior is a legacy thing that we ought to change someday; if backwards compatibility weren't such a big deal around here, we might've done it already. You can find multiple bugs in the pgsql-bugs archives that amount to complaints that psql -c ought to work more like reading from stdin or a file. I don't think it's a good idea for you to try to arrange things so that untold amounts of code is depending on that behavior never changing. In short, I think it would be good to push back on the way Chef is doing things now, not perpetuate a dependency on a legacy behavior. regards, tom lane
