New problem with SET/autocommit

> Remember how we make SET/SHOW/RESET _not_ be part of a multi-statement
> transaction when it is at the start of a transaction and autocommit is
> off?
>
> Well, look at this:
>
> test=> SET random_page_cost = 2;
> SET
> test=> COMMIT;
> WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
> COMMIT
>
> The WARNING happens with SHOW and RESET too. I wonder if we should
> suppress the WARNING of a COMMIT with no statements when autocommit is
> off. This will probably be better for portability, though again, it is
> confusing.

[ Sorry, I deleted Tom's reply.]

Tom, you mentioned suppressing the WARNING on COMMIT of an empty
transaction would make it hard to know when you are in a transaction,
but I was suggesting suppressing the warning only when autocommit was
off, so by definition you are always in a transaction, sort of. You are
in a transaction, but perhaps an empty one. Should it be OK to issue a
COMMIT of an empty transaction when autocommit is off?

--
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