| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matt Kelly <mkellycs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON |
| Date: | 2016-08-11 12:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbb1edcD6RYb=o1dNfNLqwdLDin09DPFB3xEtdUuqBx-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> committing all the previously open transactions
> [...]
>
"All"? There can only ever be at most one open transaction at any given
time...
I don't have a fundamental issue with saying "when turning auto-commit on
you are also requesting that the open transaction, if there is one, is
committed immediately." I'm more inclined to think an error is the correct
solution - or to respond in a way conditional to the present usage
(interactive vs. script). I disagree with Robert's unsubstantiated belief
regarding ON_ERROR_STOP and think that it captures the relevant user-intent
for this behavior as well.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-08-11 13:22:40 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |
| Previous Message | Stas Kelvich | 2016-08-11 11:34:30 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |