On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > > > > > It starts a transaction, failes the first command and goes into the
> > > > > > error has occurred in this transaction state. Seems like reasonable
> > > > > > behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Select command don't start transaction - it is not good
> > > >
> > > > I think you need more justification than "it is not good." If I do a
> > > > sequence of select statements in autocommit=false, I'd expect the same
> > > > consistancy as if I'd done
> > > > begin;
> > > > select ...;
> > > > select ...;
> > > >
> > > Ok.You start transaction explicit and this is ok.
> > > But simple SELECT don't start transaction.
> >
> > Actually someone post a bit from Date's book that implies it does.
> > And, that's still not an justification, it's just a restating of same
> > position. I don't see any reason why the two should be different from
> > a data consistency standpoint, there might be one, but you haven't
> > given any reasons.
>
> What if it's a select for update? IF that failed because of a timout on a
> lock, shouldn't the transaction fail? Or a select into? Either of those
> should make a transaction fail, and they're just selects.
Yes, but I think it should still work the same as if it had failed in an
explicit transaction if autocommit is false (or was that directed at
someone else).
