Did anything come of this discussion on whether SET initiates a
transaction or not?
In summary what is the right way to deal with setting autocommit in clients?
thanks,
--Barry
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Patch for handling "autocommit=false" in postgresql.conf
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:26:14 -0400
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: snpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: pgsql-jdbc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
snpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + // handle autocommit=false in postgresql.conf
> + if (haveMinimumServerVersion("7.3")) {
> + ExecSQL("set autocommit to on; commit;");
> + }
The above will fill people's logs with
WARNING: COMMIT: no transaction in progress
if they don't have autocommit off.
Use
begin; set autocommit to on; commit;
instead.
I would recommend holding off on this patch altogether, actually,
until we decide whether SET will be a transaction-initiating
command or not. I would still like to persuade the hackers community
that it should not be.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
