Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
