Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

On 12/7/2010 2:10 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:56:51AM -0800, Richard Broersma wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Andy Colson<andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> In PG the first statement you fire off (like an "insert into" for example)
>>> will start a transaction. ?If you dont commit before you disconnect that
>>> transaction will be rolled back. ?Even worse, if your program does not
>>> commit, but keeps the connection to the db open, the transaction will stay
>>> open too.
>>
>> Huh - is this new? I always thought that every statement was wrapped
>> in its own transaction unless you explicitly start your own. So you
>> shouldn't need to commit before closing a connection if you never
>> opened a transaction to begin with.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Richard Broersma Jr.
>>
>
> The default of autocommit unless explicitly starting a transaction with
> BEGIN is the normal behavior that I have seen as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken

Crikey! You're right. I need to be more careful with my assumptions.

I maintain that people need to be more careful with pg transactions.
I've seen several posts about "idle in transaction". But its not as bad
as I made out. My confusion comes from the library I use to hit PG,
which fires off a "begin" for me, and if I dont explicitly commit, it
gets rolled back.

sorry, it was confused between framework and PG.

-Andy