Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> No problem, it is just that rollbacks when you are not in a transaction
> cause a log error message.
I don't see any difference in the behavior: you get a notice either way.
NOTICE: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
NOTICE: ROLLBACK: no transaction in progress
My recommendation would generally be to do a ROLLBACK not a COMMIT, on
the grounds that if the previous user failed to complete his transaction
you probably want to abort it, not assume that it's safe to commit.
However, this safety-first approach might be unworkable if you have a
large body of existing code that all assumes it needn't issue COMMIT
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-12-18 15:12:57|
|Subject: Re: Connection Pooling, a year later|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-12-18 15:04:08|
|Subject: Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |