| Mark Lewis 2005-11-21, 8:24 pm |
| Drat. I didn't realize that it's not possible to detect a bad statement
without invalidating the current transaction, that's definitely a no-
starter.
-- Mark
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 19:28 -0500, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Mark Lewis wrote:
>
>
> There a number of problems with the fallback approach. First, since we've
> got a server error that will necessitate the transaction be rolled back so
> we'd have to establish a savepoint before every statement. Then you'd
> have to detect an error condition as being related to type resolution
> which isn't really clear. Even if this did work for people it certainly
> wouldn't be optimal because you could end up doing a lot more work,
> parsing twice and establishing and rolling back to savepoint, without
> knowing it. Your application would look like it was working, but it's
> certainly not how you want it to.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
|