| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, snpe <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] problem with new autocommit config parameter |
| Date: | 2002-09-11 01:57:51 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0209111054100.23252-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own
> transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are
> rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any
> non-SET"?
Not really, I don't think.
But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being
rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such
as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-09-11 02:11:40 | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
| Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-09-11 01:53:09 | Re: [JDBC] problem with new autocommit config parameter |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-11 02:12:31 | Re: [JDBC] problem with new autocommit config parameter |
| Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-09-11 01:53:09 | Re: [JDBC] problem with new autocommit config parameter |