Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > ... I think we
> > should just do an automatic COMMIT if it is the first statement of a
> > transaction, and if not, throw the same error we used to throw. We are
> > performing autocommit for SET at the start of a transaction now anyway,
> > so it isn't totally strange to do it for TRUNCATE, etc. too. In fact,
> > you can just put the xact commit check in the same place SET is handled
> > in postgres.c. It isn't great, but it is clean. ;-)
>
> Well, "clean" isn't the adjective I would use ;-), but this might be the

Clean in coding terms, _only_.

> most useful approach. The analogy to SET hadn't occurred to me.

Yea, the SET behavior appeared pretty queer to me, but now that I have
used it, I am getting used to it.

--
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