Tom!
Thursday, November 28, 2002, 12:08:39 PM, you wrote:
TL> "Timur V. Irmatov" <itvthor@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>> It is very simple to implement (i think) it other way - just do not
>> force transaction to enter abort state afer exception.
TL> Better study the backend's error handling before you say that.
OK, I'M WRONG, SORRY...
but I still insist that using nested transaction to allow transactions
to continue after SQL exceptions is not a good idea..
it is like trying to go long round way instead of straight one.
Am I alone here with such a thought? Are all happy about this way of
solving a problem (or adding a feature) ??
Sincerely yours,
Timur.