Is this a bug in SQL 2000/2005?

Running the script below the error number is not generated and the
transaction is rolled back ...
Should be like this, or it should nicely give the error number and let me
decide what to do?
This is very usefull when using EXECUTE() or sp_executesql().
Here is hwo you can reproduce the problem:
CREATE TABLE xTest (IDCol int, xText varchar(100))
INSERT INTO xTest(IDCol,xText1) VALUES (1,'aaa')
SELECT @.@.ERROR --should be 207
DROP TABLE xTestSome errors terminates the batch. See the error handling articles at www.sommarsko
g.se for details.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Florin Lazar" <FlorinLazar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A436FCDD-B959-42C6-965F-4D40B47F6434@.microsoft.com...
> Running the script below the error number is not generated and the
> transaction is rolled back ...
> Should be like this, or it should nicely give the error number and let me
> decide what to do?
> This is very usefull when using EXECUTE() or sp_executesql().
> Here is hwo you can reproduce the problem:
> CREATE TABLE xTest (IDCol int, xText varchar(100))
> INSERT INTO xTest(IDCol,xText1) VALUES (1,'aaa')
> SELECT @.@.ERROR --should be 207
> DROP TABLE xTest|||The batch does not compile, and thus it is never executed. So the line
"SELECT @.@.ERROR" will never be executed.
Gert-Jan
Florin Lazar wrote:
> Running the script below the error number is not generated and the
> transaction is rolled back ...
> Should be like this, or it should nicely give the error number and let me
> decide what to do?
> This is very usefull when using EXECUTE() or sp_executesql().
> Here is hwo you can reproduce the problem:
> CREATE TABLE xTest (IDCol int, xText varchar(100))
> INSERT INTO xTest(IDCol,xText1) VALUES (1,'aaa')
> SELECT @.@.ERROR --should be 207
> DROP TABLE xTest