On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:49 AM, David Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> > wrote: > >> On 12/29/2014 07:59 AM, David Johnston wrote: >> >>> >>> Anyway, the third undocumented bug is that --single-transactions gets to >>> send its COMMIT even if ON_ERROR_STOP >>> takes hold before the end of the script. I imagined it such that only >>> if every statement in the "-f <script>" was called would the COMMIT be >>> issued - thus the error_stop would supercede and leave the session >>> uncommitted and by default rolledback. >>> >> >> Not seeing the bug. --single-transaction wraps the entire script in >> BEGIN/COMMIT, ON_ERROR_STOP stops 'processing' the command, nothing in >> there about stopping transaction or rollback. So the failed \i stops the >> script from processing anything after that and the session goes directly to >> the COMMIT. If you want to deal with transactions there is >> ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK. Though I did find something interesting about that, >> which will subject of another post. >> >> > Then --single-transaction has nothing to do with the script file at-all. > It should be documented as issuing a BEGIN at session connect and a COMMIT > just before session disconnect - regardless of whether the named script > executes to completion, which can happen if it is combined with > ON_ERROR_STOP. > > > FWIW The way this is written currently I am imagining something like this happens: cat "BEGIN;" filename "COMMIT;" > script_to_execute \i script_to_execute David J.
