Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > ... I think we
> > should just do an automatic COMMIT if it is the first statement of a
> > transaction, and if not, throw the same error we used to throw.  We are
> > performing autocommit for SET at the start of a transaction now anyway,
> > so it isn't totally strange to do it for TRUNCATE, etc. too.  In fact,
> > you can just put the xact commit check in the same place SET is handled
> > in postgres.c.  It isn't great, but it is clean.  ;-)
> 
> Well, "clean" isn't the adjective I would use ;-), but this might be the

Clean in coding terms, _only_.

> most useful approach.  The analogy to SET hadn't occurred to me.

Yea, the SET behavior appeared pretty queer to me, but now that I have
used it, I am getting used to it.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073