| 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: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
| Date: | 2003-03-24 19:43:49 |
| Message-ID: | 19720.1048535029@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:
> The question is whether a client-side implementation of autocommit is
> going to allow SET to begin a transaction when autocommit is off.
Well, that'd be up to the client to decide ... but I would imagine
they'd probably make it do so. AFAIR the reason we wanted SET not to
start a transaction was only for AUTOCOMMIT, and there's no reason
to special-case it otherwise.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton V. Kozub | 2003-03-24 21:09:14 | New structers for optimazing R-tree |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-24 19:31:31 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |