Re: Disable Transaction - plans ?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com, Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>, "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, Ben-Nes Michael <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Disable Transaction - plans ?
Date: 2001-10-25 03:50:06
Message-ID: 200110250350.f9P3o7I24971@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> > In fact, some could argue that the default behavior of PostgreSQL
> > should be changed (or at least have an option) to behave like
> > Oracle, where a transaction is implicitly begun at the first
> > encounter of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE - or in PostgreSQL's case, the
> > first submitted statement.
>
> If we put in an implicit BEGIN at the start of a connection, when
> does it get committed? We certainly dare not do an implicit COMMIT
> when the client disconnects, but without that the change would
> completely break a lot of existing applications.
>
> Personally I'm perfectly happy with the notion that clients who want
> this behavior can send a BEGIN for themselves ...

In Ingres, you typically do 'SET AUTOCOMMIT ON' and it says that way for
the rest of the session. GUC would have a default setting for
AUTOCOMMIT too.

There is no plan to change the default, just to allow people to modify
the default.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Horst Herb 2001-10-25 03:53:27 Re: GUID in postgres
Previous Message Mayan 2001-10-25 03:41:00 createuser -HELP!!