Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

From: Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Matt Kelly <mkellycs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON
Date: 2016-08-08 17:04:04
Message-ID: 4a6f0ae8-242f-41eb-bfa1-066f4b2c94b3@2ndquadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/08/16 17:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thank you for inputs everyone.
>>
>> The opinions on this thread can be classified into following
>> 1. Commit
>> 2. Rollback
>> 3. Error
>> 4. Warning
>>
>> As per opinion upthread, issuing implicit commit immediately after switching
>> autocommit to ON, can be unsafe if it was not desired. While I agree that
>> its difficult to judge users intention here, but if we were to base it on
>> some assumption, the closest would be implicit COMMIT in my opinion.There is
>> higher likelihood of a user being happy with issuing a commit when setting
>> autocommit ON than a transaction being rolled back. Also there are quite
>> some interfaces which provide this.
>>
>> As mentioned upthread, issuing a warning on switching back to autocommit
>> will not be effective inside a script. It won't allow subsequent commands to
>> be committed as set autocommit to ON is not committed. Scripts will have to
>> be rerun with changes which will impact user friendliness.
>>
>> While I agree that issuing an ERROR and rolling back the transaction ranks
>> higher in safe behaviour, it is not as common (according to instances stated
>> upthread) as immediately committing any open transaction when switching back
>> to autocommit.
>
> I think I like the option of having psql issue an error. On the
> server side, the transaction would still be open, but the user would
> receive a psql error message and the autocommit setting would not be
> changed. So the user could type COMMIT or ROLLBACK manually and then
> retry changing the value of the setting.

This is my preferred action.

> Alternatively, I also think it would be sensible to issue an immediate
> COMMIT when the autocommit setting is changed from off to on. That
> was my first reaction.

I don't care for this very much.

> Aborting the server-side transaction - with or without notice -
> doesn't seem very reasonable.

Agreed.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-08 17:10:45 Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2016-08-08 17:03:41 Re: Wait events monitoring future development