Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is whether a client-side implementation of autocommit is
> going to allow SET to begin a transaction when autocommit is off.

Well, that'd be up to the client to decide ... but I would imagine
they'd probably make it do so.  AFAIR the reason we wanted SET not to
start a transaction was only for AUTOCOMMIT, and there's no reason
to special-case it otherwise.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to