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

Re: Transaction control overhauling

From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Federico Di Gregorio <federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it>
Cc: psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction control overhauling
Date: 2011-05-12 14:25:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: psycopg
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Federico Di Gregorio
<federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it> wrote:
> On 12/05/11 12:36, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Or,
>>> maybe even better, we can have 4 attributes and the set_transaction() as
>>> a shortcut:
>>>        conn.autocommit
>>>        conn.transaction_isolation_level
>>>        conn.transaction_readonly
>>>        conn.transaction_deferrable
>>>        conn.set_transaction(isolation_level, autocommit, readonly, ...)
>> Wow, I thought you wanted to limit the dbapi extensions :)
> Well, I know. But, in fact, if we introduce the possibility to set such
> parameters we also _need_ a way to retrieve them and attributes are the
> only sensible way to retrive them (a function returning a tuple is
> another way but stinks.)

I was thinking about documenting that you can issue "SHOW
default_whatever" and get the result from there. It isn't the handiest
of the procedures, OTOH it's also not a very common use case not
knowing what the level is and wanting to know it - the biggest use
case is just to set the level desired and use the connection. This
possibility is not available with "autocommit" instead, as it's
something all internal to the connection object and not related to the
PG session.

-- Daniele

In response to

psycopg by date

Next:From: OswaldoDate: 2011-05-12 15:15:05
Subject: Re: Transaction control overhauling
Previous:From: Federico Di GregorioDate: 2011-05-12 14:07:16
Subject: Re: Transaction control overhauling

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group