[Fwd: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf]
Barry Lind <barry@xythos.com>
From: Barry Lind <barry@xythos.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-10-11T00:57:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?
In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in clients?
thanks,
--Barry
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:14 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu>
CC: pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
References: <200209171425.50940.snpe@snpe.co.yu>
snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu> writes:
> + // handle autocommit=false in postgresql.conf
> + if (haveMinimumServerVersion("7.3")) {
> + ExecSQL("set autocommit to on; commit;");
> + }
The above will fill people's logs with
WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
if they don't have autocommit off.
Use
begin; set autocommit to on; commit;
instead.
I would recommend holding off on this patch altogether, actually,
until we decide whether SET will be a transaction-initiating
command or not. I would still like to persuade the hackers community
that it should not be.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org