Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LO25NyowfpC6EYmA7nCDR+Lbo5g1u5wHpJp3bOguJF7A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-08-03 12:16 GMT+02:00 Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>: >> >> Should changing the value from OFF to ON automatically either commit or >> rollback transaction in progress? >> >> >> FWIW, running set autocommit through ecpg commits the ongoing transaction >> when autocommit is set to ON from OFF. Should such behaviour be implemented >> for \set AUTOCOMMIT ON as well? > > > I dislike automatic commit or rollback here. > What problem you see with it, if we do so and may be mention the same in docs as well. Anyway, I think we should make the behaviour of both ecpg and psql same. > What about raising warning if > some transaction is open? > Not sure what benefit we will get by raising warning. I think it is better to choose one behaviour (automatic commit or leave the transaction open as is currently being done in psql) and make it consistent across all clients. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: