On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com>
> > Thank you for inputs everyone.
> > The opinions on this thread can be classified into following
> > 1. Commit
> > 2. Rollback
> > 3. Error
> > 4. Warning
> > As per opinion upthread, issuing implicit commit immediately after
> > autocommit to ON, can be unsafe if it was not desired. While I agree
> > its difficult to judge users intention here, but if we were to base it on
> > some assumption, the closest would be implicit COMMIT in my
> opinion.There is
> > higher likelihood of a user being happy with issuing a commit when
> > autocommit ON than a transaction being rolled back. Also there are quite
> > some interfaces which provide this.
> > As mentioned upthread, issuing a warning on switching back to autocommit
> > will not be effective inside a script. It won't allow subsequent
> commands to
> > be committed as set autocommit to ON is not committed. Scripts will have
> > be rerun with changes which will impact user friendliness.
> > While I agree that issuing an ERROR and rolling back the transaction
> > higher in safe behaviour, it is not as common (according to instances
> > upthread) as immediately committing any open transaction when switching
> > to autocommit.
> I think I like the option of having psql issue an error. On the
> server side, the transaction would still be open, but the user would
> receive a psql error message and the autocommit setting would not be
> changed. So the user could type COMMIT or ROLLBACK manually and then
> retry changing the value of the setting.
> Alternatively, I also think it would be sensible to issue an immediate
> COMMIT when the autocommit setting is changed from off to on. That
> was my first reaction.
> Aborting the server-side transaction - with or without notice -
> doesn't seem very reasonable.
Best of both worlds?
IF (ON_ERROR_STOP == 1)
THEN (treat this like any other error)
ELSE (send COMMIT; to server)