Re: autocommit and Django

From: Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob(at)jacobian(dot)org>
To: Federico Di Gregorio <federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it>
Cc: psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autocommit and Django
Date: 2011-06-22 21:59:03
Message-ID: BANLkTinW_kFwMTK63_5hsuVGh+yNz7rMPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: psycopg

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Federico Di Gregorio
<federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it> wrote:
> It is just half of the fix. You can't assume that switching to
> autocommit will do an implicit ROLLBACK for you. This worked until now
> by chance (and because some drivers share the same logic and even some
> code) but will break with new drivers or when old drivers decide to
> "fix" the switch as we did for psycopg. So, IMHO, the best thing is to
> always call .rollback() before switching transaction level.

OK, thanks.

Couple more questions if you don't mind:

Are there any backwards-compatability implications here? It seems not:
if prior versions of psycopg2 implicitly issued a ROLLBACK upon
switching to autocommit then we're just making that explicit. Nobody
using an older version of psycopg2 will get burned by a "new"
ROLLBACK, right?

Second, is `conn.set_isolation_level(0)` the right invocation even in
the light of the new `set_session()` API? I'd prefer to use
`set_isolation_level` because it's backwards compatible, but if it's
going away in some future version of psycopg2 I don't want to have a
similar problem crop up later. Is `set_isolation_level` considered a
stable method?

Thanks again!

Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse psycopg by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Federico Di Gregorio 2011-06-23 07:08:42 Re: autocommit and Django
Previous Message Federico Di Gregorio 2011-06-22 21:47:55 Re: autocommit and Django