On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:37:29 +0900
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:22 AM Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > That makes sense. How about rewriting this like:
> >
> > However, if the --continue-on-error option is specified and the error occurs in
> > an SQL command, the client does not abort and proceeds to the next
> > transaction regardless of the error. These cases are reported as "other failures"
> > in the output. Note that if the error occurs in a meta-command, the client will
> > still abort even when this option is specified.
>
> How about phrasing it like this, based on your version?
>
> ----------------------------
> A client's run is aborted in case of a serious error; for example, the
> connection with the database server was lost or the end of script was reached
> without completing the last transaction. The client also aborts
> if a meta-command fails, or if an SQL command fails for reasons other than
> serialization or deadlock errors when --continue-on-error is not specified.
> With --continue-on-error, the client does not abort on such SQL errors
> and instead proceeds to the next transaction. These cases are reported
> as "other failures" in the output. If the error occurs in a meta-command,
> however, the client still aborts even when this option is specified.
> ----------------------------
I'm fine with that. This version is clearer.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
