Tom Lane kirjutas E, 17.11.2003 kell 02:08: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmmm... I agree this behavior isn't ideal, although I can see the case > > for viewing this as a mistake by the application developer: they are > > assuming that they know exactly when transactions begin, which is not > > a feature provided by their language interface. > > Well, actually, it's a bug in the interface IMHO. But as I said in the > last thread, it's a fairly widespread bug.
I'm not sure that it is a client-side bug. For example Oracle seems to _always_ have a transaction going, i.e. you can't be "outside" of transaction, and you use just COMMIT to commit old _and_start_new_ transaction. IIRC the same is true for DB2. For these database the BEGIN TRANSACTION command is mainly used for starting nested transactions, which we don't have. > We've been taking the > position that the interface libraries should get fixed, and that's not > happening. It's probably time to look at a server-side fix. Maybe "fixing" the interface libraries would make them incompatible with *DBC's for all other databases in some subtle ways ? ----------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
