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: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |
Date: | 2002-09-29 02:23:02 |
Message-ID: | 200209290223.g8T2N2u09678@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Sean Chittenden wrote:
> >> Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new
> >> transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc
>
> > It is still an open item, but I think there was agreement that SET will
> > not start a transaction, and we will document that.
>
> There was? I thought you were resisting it tooth and nail ;-)
>
> If you're willing to accept this behavior, I shall make it happen.
Sure. I posted this on September 18:
> OK, I am ready to say I was wrong. Most people like that behavior so
> let's do it. Thanks for listening to me.
I took my best shot but most people disagreed, so I am ready to move
forward. I only ask that the behavior of SET be documented where we
document autocommit so it doesn't trip anyone up.
--
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 | pgsql-bugs | 2002-09-29 04:37:25 | Bug #789: Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-29 02:16:54 | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |