Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
Date: 2002-10-21 23:21:40
Message-ID: 13424.1035242500@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps RESET AUTOCOMMIT is a good enough answer?

> I was unclear on that. RESET sets it back to the postgresql.conf value,
> right? Do we know that the session didn't change it earlier in the
> script? That's where it gets tricky.

You're postulating a scenario in which some snippet of code doesn't know
what the surrounding script/application likes for AUTOCOMMIT, but does
know enough about the context to know that it's not inside a transaction
block already. That combination seems moderately implausible to me.
Anyone have an example where it'd really be useful?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-21 23:25:25 Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-21 23:18:23 One 7.3 item left