Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 2016-08-04 15:37 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> > I dislike automatic commit or rollback here.
>> >
>>
>> What problem you see with it, if we do so and may be mention the same
>> in docs as well. Anyway, I think we should make the behaviour of both
>> ecpg and psql same.
>
>
> Implicit COMMIT can be dangerous
>

Not, when user has specifically requested for autocommit mode as 'on'.
I think here what would be more meaningful is that after "Set
AutoCommit On", when the first command is committed, it should commit
previous non-pending committed commands as well.

>>
>> Not sure what benefit we will get by raising warning. I think it is
>> better to choose one behaviour (automatic commit or leave the
>> transaction open as is currently being done in psql) and make it
>> consistent across all clients.
>
>
> I am not sure about value of ecpg for this case. It is used by 0.0001%
> users. Probably nobody in Czech Republic knows this client.
>

Sure, but that doesn't give us the license for being inconsistent in
behaviour across different clients.

> Warnings enforce the user do some decision
>

They could be annoying as well, especially if that happens in scripts.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com