| 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: | 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 19:31:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200303241931.h2OJVVN05236@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Yes, rereading the config file would kill my idea --- but what API are
> > we going to pass SET to applications?
>
> Passing the info up the client-side stack is an issue, yes, but it will
> be so in any case. If it's not there in the protocol we haven't even
> got a foothold to solve the problem ...
>
> > Sure, but how are we going to treat SET in the client?
>
> Not following your concern here. SET is what it always was.
The question is whether a client-side implementation of autocommit is
going to allow SET to being a transaction when autocommit is off.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-24 19:43:49 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-24 19:21:32 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |