Re: SET autocommit begins transaction?

> > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but
> > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help
> > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN
> > > > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off.
> > >
> > > Really?  To me that makes perfect sense.  Logic:
> > >
> > > *) Only BEGIN starts a transaction
> >
> > I think the above item is the issue.  Everything is clear with
> > autocommit on.  With autocommit off, COMMIT/ROLLBACK starts a
> > transaction, not BEGIN.  BEGIN _can_ start a transaction, but it isn't
> > required:
>
> AFAICT, according to spec, commit/rollback does not start a
> transaction, the transcation is started with the first transaction
> initiating statement when there isn't a current transaction.  And,
> most of the SQL92 commands that start with SET fall into the
> category of commands that do not initiate transactions.

Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new
transaction?  I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc.  -sc

--
Sean Chittenden