2013/11/20 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd expect this to lead to a failed transaction block,
>>> or at least some sort of notice that the transaction itself
>>> has been rolled back.
>
>> Ending up in a failed transaction block would be wrong. If the user
>> does a BEGIN, a bunch of stuff, and a COMMIT, they're entitled to
>> assume without checking that they are no longer in a transaction
>> block.
>
> Absolutely. There are plenty of ways to fail at COMMIT already,
> eg deferred foreign key constraints. This shouldn't act any
> different.
Ah OK, I see how that works. Thanks for the explanation.
Ian Barwick