On 2018-01-30 08:40:11 +0000, Robert Zenz wrote:
> On 30.01.2018 03:07, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > So, my first pass at this.
>
> Nice, thank you.
>
> > + These are of particular use for client software to use when executing
> > + user-supplied SQL statements and want to provide try/catch behavior
> > + where failures are ignored.
>
> Personally, I'd reword this to something like this:
>
> > These are of particular use for client software which is executing
> > user-supplied SQL statements and wants to provide try/catch behavior
> > with the ability to continue to use the transaction after a failure.
>
> Or maybe something like this:
>
> > These are of particular use for client software which requires
> > fine-grained support over failure behavior within a transaction.
> > They allow to provide a try/catch behavior with the ability
> > to continue to use a transaction after a failure.
I agree. The goal isn't to ignore the error but to handle it.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated
| | | hjp@hjp.at | management tools.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>