| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com, Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>, "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, Ben-Nes Michael <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Disable Transaction - plans ? |
| Date: | 2001-10-24 23:55:02 |
| Message-ID: | 26901.1003967702@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> In fact, some could argue that the default behavior of PostgreSQL
> should be changed (or at least have an option) to behave like
> Oracle, where a transaction is implicitly begun at the first
> encounter of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE - or in PostgreSQL's case, the
> first submitted statement.
If we put in an implicit BEGIN at the start of a connection, when
does it get committed? We certainly dare not do an implicit COMMIT
when the client disconnects, but without that the change would
completely break a lot of existing applications.
Personally I'm perfectly happy with the notion that clients who want
this behavior can send a BEGIN for themselves ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haroldo Stenger | 2001-10-25 00:03:50 | Re: database development |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-24 23:50:26 | Re: Function won't compile |