Re: Re: psycopg3 transactions
От | Karsten Hilbert |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: psycopg3 transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | YWisObvZJNvpihtM@hermes.hilbert.loc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: psycopg3 transactions (Daniel Fortunov <postgresql@danielfortunov.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: psycopg3 transactions
|
Список | psycopg |
> We are still "using transactions", just with more precise, more explicit*, > and more flexible* semantics, represented by a context manager. > > Rolling back a transaction is possible by raising a Rollback exception > within a block. > > I hope this answers your question but if not please describe the scenario > you are thinking about. Personally, I think the autocommit=False approach is somewhat safer (more conservative) for the data: One *always* is inside a transaction, and the default behaviour is to rollback. Nothing is by accident automatically committed -- which can happen with autocommit=True. I would certainly suggest that a context manager calls .rollback() during teardown rather than .commit() -- the context manager cannot know whether actions really are to be committed, even if technically possible. Karsten -- GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B
В списке psycopg по дате отправления: