Re: [BUGS] Possible bug in 7.4.5

2004-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we still need a backported fix? No. This is a behavioral change of a *very* longstanding behavior. It's going in at 8.0, not 7.4.something. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [BUGS] Possible bug in 7.4.5

2004-10-06 Thread Devrim GUNDUZ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Am I missing something, or is it a bug? I can't reproduce it in 8.0beta2. whereas prior versions did the rollback but still reported the command tag as COMMIT. AFAIR, Po

Re: [BUGS] Possible bug in 7.4.5

2004-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am I missing something, or is it a bug? I can't reproduce it in 8.0beta2. 8.0 actually behaves the same way: the COMMIT gets you out of the transaction block. It just tells you that it's treating it as a rollback: regression=# comm; ERROR: syntax erro

Re: [BUGS] Possible bug in 7.4.5

2004-10-06 Thread Kris Jurka
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: > [I say COMMIT on a failed transaction and it looks successful, but isn't.] This is a long standing behavior. Internally a ROLLBACK happens, but commit is reported back to the client. This has only changed in 8.0 to reflect what actually happened.

[BUGS] Possible bug in 7.4.5

2004-10-06 Thread Devrim GUNDUZ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm using 7.4.5 on a test platform and had a weird behaviour. Here is the case: test=# CREATE TABLE t1 (s_no int2 PRIMARY KEY,a varchar(10)); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "t1_pkey" for table "t1" test=# CREATE TA