Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Do we change tags in any other commands?

MOVE, FETCH, EXECUTE ...

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:33:14 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Do we change tags in any other commands?
> 
> MOVE, FETCH, EXECUTE ...

Ah, yes, I remember we changed EXECUTE recently to return the tag of
what we executed.  How do we modify MOVE/FETCH tags?  I can't remember.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:36:19 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> MOVE, FETCH, EXECUTE ...

> Ah, yes, I remember we changed EXECUTE recently to return the tag of
> what we executed.  How do we modify MOVE/FETCH tags?  I can't remember.

I was just looking to see what cases ProcessUtility allowed to change
the tag.  I think that what the code does is just to append the row
count, which you could argue isn't "changing the tag".  But really,
is returning "UPDATE 0" vs "UPDATE 1" any different conceptually from
what we are talking about here?  It's still using the tag to pass back
info about what the command actually did.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:42:15 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> MOVE, FETCH, EXECUTE ...
> 
> > Ah, yes, I remember we changed EXECUTE recently to return the tag of
> > what we executed.  How do we modify MOVE/FETCH tags?  I can't remember.
> 
> I was just looking to see what cases ProcessUtility allowed to change
> the tag.  I think that what the code does is just to append the row
> count, which you could argue isn't "changing the tag".  But really,
> is returning "UPDATE 0" vs "UPDATE 1" any different conceptually from
> what we are talking about here?  It's still using the tag to pass back
> info about what the command actually did.

Yes, the count is what I remember changing, and as I remember the goal
was to have us return MOVE 0 if you do MOVE 1 at the end of a cursor. 
We already return counts for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, but the racial issue
with MOVE was that the count returned might not match the count
supplied.

Therefore, I don't see MOVE/FETCH as the same issue as ROLLBACK. 
EXECUTE is closer, and I think new for 7.5, but the interesting part
there is that you should always get back something different from
EXECUTE, while with COMMIT it would change only when you have an aborted
transaction.

As I remember, the big issue was how often applications are looking and
comparing these tags to take actions.  I think we should return ROLLBACK
on COMMIT failure and we can see if we get any problem reports during
beta.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> As I remember, the big issue was how often applications are looking and
> comparing these tags to take actions.  I think we should return ROLLBACK
> on COMMIT failure and we can see if we get any problem reports during
> beta.

Good enough; I'll make it happen.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:13:49 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message 
FYI: I'm agreeing w/Tom who is agreeing with me.

The tag change should be good.  I do hope people are
not relying on seeing COMMIT when the transaction
rolled back.  It does not seem that in this case
they would.

elein

On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:13:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > As I remember, the big issue was how often applications are looking and
> > comparing these tags to take actions.  I think we should return ROLLBACK
> > on COMMIT failure and we can see if we get any problem reports during
> > beta.
> 
> Good enough; I'll make it happen.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:56:22 -0700
elein <elein@varlena.com>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
elein wrote:
> FYI: I'm agreeing w/Tom who is agreeing with me.
> 
> The tag change should be good.  I do hope people are
> not relying on seeing COMMIT when the transaction
> rolled back.  It does not seem that in this case
> they would.

If it is a problem, hopefully we will hear about it during beta.  I will
mention is as a backward-compatibility issue in the release notes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 
> elein
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:13:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > As I remember, the big issue was how often applications are looking and
> > > comparing these tags to take actions.  I think we should return ROLLBACK
> > > on COMMIT failure and we can see if we get any problem reports during
> > > beta.
> > 
> > Good enough; I'll make it happen.
> > 
> > 			regards, tom lane
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> > 
> >                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> elein wrote:
> 
>>FYI: I'm agreeing w/Tom who is agreeing with me.
>>
>>The tag change should be good.  I do hope people are
>>not relying on seeing COMMIT when the transaction
>>rolled back.  It does not seem that in this case
>>they would.
> 
> 
> If it is a problem, hopefully we will hear about it during beta.  I will
> mention is as a backward-compatibility issue in the release notes.

The JDBC driver when talking the V2 protocol (unusual for a recent 
server, but possible) looks for either COMMIT or ROLLBACK when looking 
for end-of-transaction, so it should be fine.

-O

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:40:14 +1200
Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #1118: Misleading Commit message