Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Sean Chittenden wrote:
> >> Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new
> >> transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc
> > It is still an open item, but I think there was agreement that SET will
> > not start a transaction, and we will document that.
> There was? I thought you were resisting it tooth and nail ;-)
> If you're willing to accept this behavior, I shall make it happen.
Sure. I posted this on September 18:
> OK, I am ready to say I was wrong. Most people like that behavior so
> let's do it. Thanks for listening to me.
I took my best shot but most people disagreed, so I am ready to move
forward. I only ask that the behavior of SET be documented where we
document autocommit so it doesn't trip anyone up.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: pgsql-bugs||Date: 2002-09-29 04:37:25|
|Subject: Bug #789: Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-29 02:16:54|
|Subject: Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |