Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?

From: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?
Date: 2002-09-29 00:21:43
Message-ID: 20020929002143.GC80141@perrin.int.nxad.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
> > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but
> > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help
> > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN
> > > > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off.
> > >
> > > Really?  To me that makes perfect sense.  Logic:
> > >
> > > *) Only BEGIN starts a transaction
> >
> > I think the above item is the issue.  Everything is clear with
> > autocommit on.  With autocommit off, COMMIT/ROLLBACK starts a
> > transaction, not BEGIN.  BEGIN _can_ start a transaction, but it isn't
> > required:
> 
> AFAICT, according to spec, commit/rollback does not start a
> transaction, the transcation is started with the first transaction
> initiating statement when there isn't a current transaction.  And,
> most of the SQL92 commands that start with SET fall into the
> category of commands that do not initiate transactions.

Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new
transaction?  I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc.  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-09-29 01:31:09
Subject: Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?
Previous:From: Frank Van DammeDate: 2002-09-28 18:55:50
Subject: unable to build on openbsd-sparc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group