Re: New problem with SET/autocommit

OK, I guess it isn't a problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom, you mentioned suppressing the WARNING on COMMIT of an empty
> > transaction would make it hard to know when you are in a transaction,
> > but I was suggesting suppressing the warning only when autocommit was
> > off, so by definition you are always in a transaction, sort of.  You are
> > in a transaction, but perhaps an empty one.
> 
> I don't understand why you're labeling this behavior as a problem.
> To me, it's the expected behavior, it's useful in debugging, and it
> does not actually break anything.  (A WARNING is not an ERROR.  Though
> I'd not object if you'd like to downgrade the begin/commit/rollback
> wrong-state WARNINGs to NOTICEs, like they were before.)
> 
> > Should it be OK to issue a
> > COMMIT of an empty transaction when autocommit is off?
> 
> We need to be careful about adding more and more special cases to
> the transactional rules.  The more there are, the more confusing
> and hard-to-maintain the system will be.  I don't think this proposed
> special case is justified: it has no value except to suppress a notice.
> Moreover, it's suppressing a notice in a context where the user
> demonstrably has a misunderstanding of the transactional behavior.
> Don't we usually throw notices to try to teach people what they
> may be doing wrong?
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

--  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