From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |
Date: | 2002-09-18 21:59:14 |
Message-ID: | 200209182159.g8ILxE010566@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > Well there is discussion on whether a SET with autocommit off should
> > > > start a transaction if it is the first command. Right now it does, and
> > > > clearly you have a case where it acts strangely.
> > >
> > > Problem is that through various DB APIs such as DBI, you can't
> > > garuntee to the user doing development that that it's the 1st command
> > > that they're performing.
> >
> > OK, but why does my suggestion not work:
> >
> > SET autocommit = ON;
> > COMMIT;
>
> Hrm... if I changed the DBI layer for Ruby to have:
>
> db['AutoCommit'] = true
>
> use 'SET autocommit = ON; COMMIT;' I think I'd be breaking tons of
> applications where they wouldn't be expecting the commit.
Actually, the current approved way is:
BEGIN; SET autocommit = ON; COMMIT;
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2002-09-18 22:02:22 | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |
Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2002-09-18 21:57:34 | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |