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

Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?
Date: 2002-09-29 02:23:02
Message-ID: 200209290223.g8T2N2u09678@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Sean Chittenden wrote:
> >> 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
> 
> > It is still an open item, but I think there was agreement that SET will
> > not start a transaction, and we will document that.
> 
> There was?  I thought you were resisting it tooth and nail ;-)
> 
> If you're willing to accept this behavior, I shall make it happen.

Sure. I posted this on September 18:

> OK, I am ready to say I was wrong.  Most people like that behavior so
> let's do it.  Thanks for listening to me.

I took my best shot but most people disagreed, so I am ready to move
forward.  I only ask that the behavior of SET be documented where we
document autocommit so it doesn't trip anyone up.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: pgsql-bugsDate: 2002-09-29 04:37:25
Subject: Bug #789: Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-29 02:16:54
Subject: Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?

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