From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
Date: | 2010-12-07 20:10:28 |
Message-ID: | 20101207201028.GE4028@aart.is.rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:56:51AM -0800, Richard Broersma wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > In PG the first statement you fire off (like an "insert into" for example)
> > will start a transaction. ?If you dont commit before you disconnect that
> > transaction will be rolled back. ?Even worse, if your program does not
> > commit, but keeps the connection to the db open, the transaction will stay
> > open too.
>
> Huh - is this new? I always thought that every statement was wrapped
> in its own transaction unless you explicitly start your own. So you
> shouldn't need to commit before closing a connection if you never
> opened a transaction to begin with.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
The default of autocommit unless explicitly starting a transaction with
BEGIN is the normal behavior that I have seen as well.
Cheers,
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-12-07 20:22:15 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |
Previous Message | Gary Doades | 2010-12-07 19:58:37 | Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows |