On 10/14/21 15:16, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
We are still "using transactions", just with more precise, more explicit*,
and more flexible* semantics, represented by a context manager.
Rolling back a transaction is possible by raising a Rollback exception
within a block.
I hope this answers your question but if not please describe the scenario
you are thinking about.
Personally, I think the autocommit=False approach is somewhat
safer (more conservative) for the data:
One *always* is inside a transaction, and the default
behaviour is to rollback.
Nothing is by accident automatically committed -- which can
happen with autocommit=True.
+1
I would certainly suggest that a context manager calls
.rollback() during teardown rather than .commit() -- the
context manager cannot know whether actions really are to
be committed, even if technically possible.
If I'm following that option exists:
https://www.psycopg.org/psycopg3/docs/api/connections.html#psycopg.Connection.transaction
force_rollback (bool) – Roll back the transaction at the end of the
block even if there were no error (e.g. to try a no-op process).
Karsten
--
GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
