Barry, Never mind. Patch with 'begin;set autocommit to on;commit' work fine for JDBC spec.
regards, Haris Peco On Friday 11 October 2002 02:57 am, Barry Lind wrote: > 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html