Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_transaction_status() unreliable?!

From: ljb <ljb1813(at)pobox(dot)com>
To: pgsql-php(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_transaction_status() unreliable?!
Date: 2009-05-03 01:59:54
Message-ID: gtitqq$26l3$1@news.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-php
wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com wrote:
>
> I'm having some ugly fun here.  It doesn't seem as if
> pg_transaction_status() is reliable in the least.
>
> For example, I'm doing the equivalent of the following:
>
> pg_send_query_params($conn, 'BEGIN', array());
> pg_get_result($conn);
> ... some other queries, each using pg_send_query_params() and
>  pg_get_result() ...
> pg_send_query_params($conn, 'COMMIT', array());
> pg_get_result($conn);
> echo pg_transaction_status($conn);
>
> Now, amazingly enough, pg_transaction_status() returns
> PGSQL_TRANSACTION_ACTIVE after the commit.  This makes no sense to
> me at all ... it should return PGSQL_TRANSACTION_IDLE, since the
> connection is no longer in a transaction.
>
> Is anyone else seeing this?  I have assertions failing all over the
> place because my code thinks that transactions have been left
> uncommitted.

One needs to loop on pg_get_result() until it returns False. Are you doing
this? I think perhaps you are not. You can sometimes sort of get away
with a single call, but it isn't a good idea to rely on it.

I duplicated your result by doing the COMMIT but only doing
pg_get_result once; then pg_transaction_status gave me the odd
PGSQL_TRANSACTION_ACTIVE. But if I loop on pg_get_result (it returns a
result handle, then false the next time), I get the expected IDLE status.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-php by date

Next:From: Bill MoranDate: 2009-05-04 19:34:21
Subject: Re: pg_transaction_status() unreliable?!
Previous:From: Bill MoranDate: 2009-05-01 21:03:02
Subject: pg_transaction_status() unreliable?!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group