Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 23 February 2016 at 21:34, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I believe Sridhar is imagining that someday "set autocommit to false" >> might be a command that the server would understand.
> ... I guess. Yeah. We've been there, we've done that. We're not doing it again. Cf commits 26993b291, f85f43dfb, 525a48991, as well as a whole bunch of thrashing in between the first two (grep the git logs for "autocommit" to find most of it). It's a bit harder to locate relevant email threads, because searching for just "autocommit" yields too many hits; but here's one long thread from when we were starting to realize that it wasn't working very well: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3e54526a.121eb...@tpf.co.jp In all, this was one of the more searing experiences contributing to what's now received project wisdom that GUCs that change fundamental semantics are a bad idea. > Oracle's SQL*Plus has the concept of turning autocommit off, but I suspect > that's client-side behaviour. The conclusion we came to back in 2002-2003 was that client-side autocommit was the only behavior we could sanely support. I see no reason to think that a fresh experiment in the same direction would produce a different result. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
