From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SET TRANSACTION conformance to SQL:2003 |
Date: | 2007-09-14 16:29:33 |
Message-ID: | 200709141629.l8EGTXb28748@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Short patch to implement SQL standard behaviour of the SET TRANSACTION
> command. According to their publically accessible docs, I note that
> MySQL and Ingres correctly implement this behaviour, SQLServer does this
> also (and more), while Oracle and DB2 do so since they use implicit
> transaction blocks.
>
> Docs page updated.
>
> Manual tests OK. There isn't a test suite for SET TRANSACTION, so I
> haven't created one just for this. Behaviour is shown below; the SET
> command sets the session characteristics of the *next* transaction, when
> executed outside of a transaction block.
>
> postgres=# show transaction_read_only;
> transaction_read_only
> -----------------------
> off
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# set transaction read only;
> SET
> postgres=# begin;
> BEGIN
> postgres=# show transaction_read_only;
> transaction_read_only
> -----------------------
> on
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# commit;
> COMMIT
>
>
> --
> Simon Riggs
> 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-09-14 16:45:21 | Re: tsearch refactorings |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-09-14 16:25:54 | Re: invalidly encoded strings |