Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON

2016-08-04 15:37 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2016-08-03 12:16 GMT+02:00 Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> >>
> >> Should changing the value from OFF to ON automatically either commit or
> >> rollback transaction in progress?
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW, running set autocommit through ecpg commits the ongoing
> transaction
> >> when autocommit is set to ON from OFF. Should such behaviour be
> implemented
> >> for \set AUTOCOMMIT ON as well?
> >
> >
> > I dislike automatic commit or rollback here.
> >
>
> What problem you see with it, if we do so and may be mention the same
> in docs as well. Anyway, I think we should make the behaviour of both
> ecpg and psql same.
>

Implicit COMMIT can be dangerous - ROLLBACK can be unfriendly surprising.

> > What about raising warning if
> > some transaction is open?
> >
>
> Not sure what benefit we will get by raising warning. I think it is
> better to choose one behaviour (automatic commit or leave the
> transaction open as is currently being done in psql) and make it
> consistent across all clients.
>

I am not sure about value of ecpg for this case. It is used by 0.0001%
users. Probably nobody in Czech Republic knows this client.

Warnings enforce the user do some decision - I don't think so we can do
this decision well.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>