| From: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | snpe <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)redhat(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: AutoCommit mode in PostgreSQL (7.3 beta1 from CVS 05.09.2002) |
| Date: | 2002-09-09 17:54:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3D7CE051.4050905@redhat.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I could not find the exact clause that says that in either SQL'92 nor
SQL'99, but C.J.Date says (about SQL'92) says that a DISCONNECT would
"automatically execute either a ROLLBACK or a COMMIT (it is
implementation dependent which)".
I guess a GUC variable can be a good idea, for Oracle compatibility
purposes. I would make our default different from Oracle's though: if a
commit is not received something is wrong, either an user error, some
tool error, etc. It sees safer to ROLLBACK. Isn't that what we do if
a connection is lost due to a communication error anyway? How can
Oracle know that if it got the whole set of commands for the transaction
anyway? Isn't there a more specific situation where it does that (the
automatic COMMIT)?
Anyway, psql can be smarter and ask the user: "There is a transaction in
progress, do you want to commit?", what can be done
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ericson Smith | 2002-09-09 17:59:55 | pg_restore not able to restore files larger that 2.4GB |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-09-09 17:31:32 | Re: Load sharing question |