[GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-21 Thread Stephen Touset
emon through a Ruby library (pg) which wraps libpq5. I assumed the only commonality between psql and our application was libpq5, so upgraded it to a later version (9.2.2) with no luck. Does anyone know what this might be? Is it a bug? A feature? A configuration issue? I'm kind of at a los

[GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-21 Thread Stephen Touset
pg) which wraps libpq5. I assumed the only commonality between psql and our application was libpq5, so upgraded it to a later version (9.2.2) with no luck. Does anyone know what this might be? Is it a bug? A feature? A configuration issue? I'm kind of at a loss at this point. Thanks in ad

Re: [GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen Touset
On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > On 12/20/2012 04:33 PM, Stephen Touset wrote: > >> So yes, AUTOCOMMIT is definitely on. > > What does \set show when entered from the psql command line? test=> \set AUTOCOMMIT = 'OFF' *facepalm*. Turns

Re: [GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen Touset
s. But if I do a simple SHOW, and COMMIT afterward, I get no such warning (indicating that I'm still inside of an uncommitted transaction). However, obviously, the client is telling me explicitly in the provided log that AUTOCOMMIT is on. -- Stephen Touset Senior Software Engineer stephen.

Re: [GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen Touset
but I wasn't even able to turn it off for testing purposes. test=# SET AUTOCOMMIT TO off; ERROR: SET AUTOCOMMIT TO OFF is no longer supported So yes, AUTOCOMMIT is definitely on. -- Stephen Touset Senior Software Engineer stephen.tou...@onelogin.com -- Sent via pgsql-general ma

[GENERAL] Implicit transaction not rolling back after error

2012-12-20 Thread Stephen Touset
n psql and our application was libpq5, so upgraded it to a later version (9.2.2) with no luck. Does anyone know what this might be? Is it a bug? A feature? A configuration issue? I'm kind of at a loss at this point. Thanks in advance for your help. -- Stephen Touset Senior Software Engineer