Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The issue I have is that every interface that relies on libpq is going > > to have to code it itself. Is that OK? > > So? Most interfaces have to adhere to their own notions of transaction > semantics and control API anyway. libpq should stay out of their way > rather than try to be helpful. I see this as not different from the > lesson we learned that doing it in the backend isn't the right place.
I know Perl and jdbc do, but things like c++ and libpgeasy don't really have a specification to follow. With the ability to check the transaction status, it might now be easy enough to do autocommit that having it happen in every interfaces will be ok. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
