Horton
Menu

Re: [JDBC] problem with new autocommit config parameter

Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>

View thread
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, snpe <snpe@snpe.co.yu>, "pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org" <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-09-11T01:57:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Do we want to say "With autocommit off, SET will be in it's own
> transaction if it appears before any non-SET command", and "SETs are
> rolled back except if autocommit off and they appear before any
> non-SET"?

Not really, I don't think.

But I'm starting to wonder if we should re-think all SET commands being
rolled back if a transaction fails. Some don't seem to make sense, such
as having SET AUTOCOMMIT or SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION roll back.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC