| 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: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, owensmk(at)earthlink(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |
| Date: | 2001-12-18 15:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | 13231.1008688123@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> No problem, it is just that rollbacks when you are not in a transaction
> cause a log error message.
I don't see any difference in the behavior: you get a notice either way.
regression=# commit;
NOTICE: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
COMMIT
regression=# rollback;
NOTICE: ROLLBACK: no transaction in progress
ROLLBACK
regression=#
My recommendation would generally be to do a ROLLBACK not a COMMIT, on
the grounds that if the previous user failed to complete his transaction
you probably want to abort it, not assume that it's safe to commit.
However, this safety-first approach might be unworkable if you have a
large body of existing code that all assumes it needn't issue COMMIT
explicitly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-18 15:12:57 | Re: Connection Pooling, a year later |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-18 15:04:08 | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |