Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode
От | Hiroshi Inoue |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3E7A4EBE.C8A176C8@tpf.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I think our SET functionality is easy to understand and use. I don't > > see pushing it into the client as greatly improving things, and could > > make things worse. If we can't get it right in the backend, how many > > clients are going to do it wrong? > > This argument overlooks the fact that most of the client libraries > already have notions of autocommit on/off semantics that they need to > adhere to. libpq is too simple to have heard of the concept, but I > believe that JDBC, ODBC, and DBI/DBD all need to deal with it anyway. > I doubt that managing a server-side facility makes their lives any > easier ... especially not if its semantics don't quite match what > they need to do, which seems very possible. > > But it'd be interesting to hear what the JDBC and ODBC maintainers > think about it. The current ODBC driver doesn't work well under autocommit off mode at server side. However, it's not on my (at least ASAP) TODO item. regards, Hiroshi Inouehttp://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: