[Fwd: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf]

Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?

In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in clients?

thanks,
--Barry

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:14 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: snpe <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu>
CC: pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
References: <200209171425(dot)50940(dot)snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu>

snpe <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu> writes:
> + // handle autocommit=false in postgresql.conf
> + if (haveMinimumServerVersion("7.3")) {
> + ExecSQL("set autocommit to on; commit;");
> + }

The above will fill people's logs with
WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
if they don't have autocommit off.

Use
begin; set autocommit to on; commit;
instead.

I would recommend holding off on this patch altogether, actually,
until we decide whether SET will be a transaction-initiating
command or not. I would still like to persuade the hackers community
that it should not be.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org