| From: | Reuben Rissler <silrep(at)emypeople(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | psycopg(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psycopg3 transactions |
| Date: | 2021-10-13 12:20:54 |
| Message-ID: | d87c6924-63d0-77e4-f140-c2caa06fc8c7@emypeople.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | psycopg |
<snip>
> I think we can improve the documentation there by extending more about
> the effects of the interaction between DBAPI transactions and the
> transaction() blocks. And things are definitely more intuitive if
> transaction() is used in autocommit: we might want to advise people to
> do that.
>
> Suggestions are welcome.
>
> -- Daniele
>
I find this new behavior of psycopg(3) more sane, even if less
?intuitive?, than the behavior of psycopg2. I had run across the fact
that you can close the cursor and then commit afterwards. I found this
odd, as I would have guessed closing a cursor with uncomitted data would
have thrown the data away.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually used the new psycopg. I just actively
follow this mail list while continuing to use psycopg2.
Reuben Rissler
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lembark, Steven | 2021-10-13 13:11:14 | Using standard SQL placeholders in PG |
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2021-10-13 11:50:05 | Re: psycopg3 transactions |