| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Date: | 2002-10-21 22:18:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4066.1035238715@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> ... 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.
>>
>> We can go with the auto-COMMIT idea for statements that are invoked at
>> the outer interactive level,
What I just committed uses your idea of auto-committing TRUNCATE et al,
but now that I review the thread I think that everyone else thought that
that was a dangerous idea. How do you feel about simply throwing an error
in autocommit-off mode, instead? (At least it's a localized change now)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-21 22:29:28 | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-10-21 22:14:40 | Re: CVS split problems |