Steve Wranovsky wrote:
> >> Given these considerations, I think it's a mistake for ODBC to treat
> >> SELECT differently from other queries for the purpose of setting
> >> transaction boundaries.
> >OK, agreed.
> >However simply putting back the behabior make it impossible to call
> >VACUUM in psqlodbc autocommit off mode.
> >My idea is as follows.
> > [In autocommit off mode]
> > 1) All statements except STMT_TYPE_OTHER issue
> > "BEGIN" if a trasaction isn't in progress.
> > 2) STMT_TYPE_OTHER statements automatically issue
> > "COMMIT" if a transaction is progress.
> >Comments ?
> I now agree with point 1 above, but for point 2, I believe you should
> force the user to issue a COMMIT if a transaction is in progress
> when they try a VACUUM ANALYZE.
I've been waiting for reply.
I see. It's the simplest change. But you seem to have to
change your existent your code. Or you may have to distinguish
your code according to PG servers. Is it OK ?
In response to
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2001-02-12 23:44:17|
|Subject: Re: RE: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] 6.2 protocol|
|Previous:||From: Steve Wranovsky||Date: 2001-02-12 16:37:00|
|Subject: Re: [ODBC] RE: 7.1 beta 3 Linux ODBC BEGIN
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Jouni Ahto||Date: 2001-02-12 23:19:26|
|Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Re: PostgreSQL and PHP persistent
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-02-12 17:25:37|
|Subject: Re: Re: PostgreSQL and PHP persistent connections|