Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think our SET functionality is easy to understand and use.  I don't
> > see pushing it into the client as greatly improving things, and could
> > make things worse.  If we can't get it right in the backend, how many
> > clients are going to do it wrong?
> This argument overlooks the fact that most of the client libraries
> already have notions of autocommit on/off semantics that they need to
> adhere to.  libpq is too simple to have heard of the concept, but I
> believe that JDBC, ODBC, and DBI/DBD all need to deal with it anyway.
> I doubt that managing a server-side facility makes their lives any
> easier ... especially not if its semantics don't quite match what
> they need to do, which seems very possible.
> But it'd be interesting to hear what the JDBC and ODBC maintainers
> think about it. 

The current ODBC driver doesn't work well under autocommit
off mode at server side. However, it's not on my (at least
ASAP) TODO item.

Hiroshi Inoue

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to